T^^^C^^^?>^__  ___^^%^' 


^^ 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 


OPINION    OF    CHIEF   JUSTICE    TANEY, 


AN     INTRODUCTION 


L>  K.      J.      Ti.     VAN       E  V.R  I  E. 


AN      A  P  P  E  N_D  I  X, 


CO.NTAI.VIXG  AN  ESSAY  O.V  THE 


VV^  NATURAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  PROGNATHOUS   RACE 


(Df  Blankinii, 


ORIGINALLY     WRITTEX     FOR    'rHK     NEW     YORK    DAY-BOOK 
BT 

i)  It     S.     A.     C  A  11  T  \V  R I  a  H  T, 

OF  NEW  ORLEAX.S. 


I  I»ri?LL-irKI)  RY  VAN  LVRIIC,  IIORTON  k  OX, 

AT  TlIK  OKKICK  OK  THK   XKW    YOltK   nAV-BOOK,  40  AX.N   STREST,    XEW    YOKK. 

PRICES  :— Single  Copies,  25  cents  ;  Five  Copies,  $1 ;    Twelve  Copi 
$2;   Fifty  Copies,  $6;  One  hundred  Copies,  or  over,  $10  per  100, 


I    \ 


s:^w3rj-^)=^j: 


•  Si  *. 


ies,     il  I 

•    4) 


>^^r^ 


'6 

ft 


x**' 

«/ 


r- 


■*^=i 


T   O  IN^'S 


LIFE 

OK 

ANDEEW    JACKSON, 

m  THREE  OCTAVO  VOLUMES,  WITH  STEEL  PORTRAITS. 
PRICE   $2  50  PER  VOL. 


The  work  is  sold  by  subscription  only.  The  first  volume  is  now  ready;  Ihe  se- 
cond and  third  are  to  follow  at  intervals  of  three  or  four  months.  The  press  have 
spoken  of  the  work  in  terms  of  high  commendation. 


This  is  decidedly  the  most  comprehensive,  truthful  and  faithful  biography  of 
Jackso.v  ever  written,  and  not  only  for  this,  but  for  its  simple,  pure  and  elevated 
style  it  must  stand  unchallenged  be.'bre  the  literary  world. — Nashville  (TVnn.)  Ban- 
ner of  Peace. 

Jackson  stands. out  in  this  work  of  remarkable  graphic  power  and  naturalness 
as  the  lifelike,  indomitable  and  real  man  he  wa^. — Memphis  Presbyterian  Sentinel. 

It  is  an  honest  book  throughout. — Nashville  Union. 

He  has  made  the  picture  as  natural  as  life,  and  as  fascinating  as  it  is  natural. — 
Memphis  Avalanche. 

It  is  a  work  of  thrilling  interest,  and  leaves  the  impre-s  of  candor  and  truth  on 
every  page. — Memphis  Appeal. 

This  book,  so  full,  so  tlioroiigh,  and  so  important,  is  having  a  very  rapid  sale, 
and  will  hold  a  prominent  place  in  e^ery  well-selected  library  in  America. — 
Clarksville  {Tenn.)  Jeffersonian. 

Everybody  who  has  read  it  praises  "  Parton's  Life  of  Jackson." — Clarksville 
Chronicle. 

Here  is  a  life  which  is  a  life  indeed,  and  before  which  the  conventional  and  com- 
mon-place biographies  of  modern  times  sink  into  stupidity  and  insignificance. — 
iV.  Y.  Journal  of  Commerce. 

Every  page  is  aiiw.  It  is  romantic  as  a  raeditcval  romance,  and  yet  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  being  true. — Iloijie  Journal 


The  three  volumes  will  succc.s.<ively  present  Jack.son  na  the  Pioneer,  the  Soi.niEn, 
the  Statesman;  and  with  so  interesting  a  subject  the  publishers  confidently  promise 
in  Mr.  Pakto.v'.s  work  one  of  the  most  attractive  and  valuable  biographies  ever 
given  to  the  American  public. 

MASON  BROTH P:RS,  Pubushkrs, 

5  il-  7  MERCER  ST.,  NEW  YORK 


ik>. 


*A\ 


itv 


THE  DEED  SCOTT  DECISION. 


OPINION   OF   CHIEF   JUSTICE   TANEY, 

wnu 

AN     INTRODUCTION 

DR.     J;     H.    VAN      EVRIEi 
jxao, 

AN      APPENDIX, 

OOMTADONa  AS  ISSAY  OS  THK 

NATUEAIi  HISTORY  OF  THE  PROGNATHOUS  RAGS 


(Df  MmM, 


ORIGINALLY    WKl'lTEN    FOR    THE    NEW    YORK   DAY-BOOK, 
BT 

DK.   S.     A.     CARTWRIGHT, 

OF  NEW  ORLEANS, 


PUBUSHED  BY  VAN  EVRIE,  HORTON  *  CO., 
is  nn  omca  of  iia  x«vr  tork  dat-book,  40  iss  street,  wit  tobx. 

1860. 


ExTlJED  according  to  Act  of  CoDgress,  ia  the  year  1S59, 

bt  van  EVRIE,  HORTON  &,  CO., 

In  the  Clerk's  CCBce  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


/  ^17? 


INTRODUCTION 


DR.     J.     H.      VAN      EVRIE. 


This  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  and  those  of  his  eminent  colleagues  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  Republic,  is  an  epoch  in  our  civil  history,  which  is  doubtless 
destined  in  all  future  time  to  be  a  land  mark  in  American  civilization. 

The  facts  in  the  case  are  all  very  simple,  distinct,  common-place,  and  the  conclu- 
sions from  them  plain  and  unavoidable;  nevertheles?,  this  decision,  except  the 
Declaration  of  National  Independence  in  1776,  is  the  most  momentous  event  that  has 
ever  occurred  on  this  continent,  and  the  results  destined  to  flow  from  it  can  be 
second  only  in  importance  to  tliose  ^\  hich  have  followed  tbat  memorable  event.  The 
Declaration  of  1776  announced  a  truth  the  most  stupendous  that  ever  fell  from 
mere  mortal  lips— the  Dred  Scott  decision  confirms  a  principle  essential  to  the  pre- 
servation and  success  of  the  former,  and  which  otherwise  would  needsbe  bat  little  bet- 
ter than  '-sounding  brass  or  a  tinkling  cymbal."  Unlike  the  homogeneous  population 
of  Europe,  American  society  ismade  up  of  diverse  races,  each  having  its  own  specific 
wants  and  necessities,  and  therefore  any  social  or  political  organism  that  is  not  in 
accord  with  these  fundamental  facts— these  unchanging  and  unchangeable  ordi- 
nances of  the  Eternal— must  rest  on  false  foundations,  and  work  out  evil  only  to 
all  concerned. 

The  doctrine  of  1776,  that  all  (white)  men  "are  created  free  and  equal,"  is  univer- 
sally accepted  and  made  the  basis  of  all  our  Institutions,  State  and  National,  and 
the  relations  of  citizenship— the  rights  of  the  individual— in  short,  the  status  of  the 
dominant  race,  is  thus  defined  and  fixed  for  ever. 

But  there  have  been  doubts  and  uncertainties  in  regard  to  the  negro.  Indeed, 
many  (pcrhips  most)  American  communities  have  latterly  sought  to  include  him 
in  the  ranks  of  citizenship,  and  force  upon  him  the  status  of  the  sup-Tior  race. 

This  confusion  is  now  at  an  end,  and  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  Dred  Scott  deci- 
sion, has  defined  the  relations,  and  fixed  the  status  of  the  subordinate  race /oreyer— 
for  that  decision  is  in  accord  with  the  natural  relations  of  the  races,  and  therefore 
can  nerer  perish.  It  is  based  on  historical  and  existing  facts,  which  are  indisputable, 
and  it  is  a  necessary,  indeed  unavoidable  inference,  from  these  facts. 

A  few  years  after  Columbus  had  discovered  and  planted  a  Spanish  colony  in  the 
island  of  St.  Domingo,  there  were  some  negroes  (slaves)  imported  from  Spain  into 
the  island,  and  they  were  found  to  hi  so  superior  to  the  natives  as  laborers  on  the 
Spanish  plantations,  that  others  were  soon  afterwards  imported  directly  from  Africa, 
and  finally  into  all  or  nearly  all  of  the  Spanish  possessions.  The  British  colonies 
in  the  northern  and  temperate  latitudes  did  not  need  t'lis  special  class  or  kind  of 
labor,  but  as  they  werein  pr>s.ses3;on  of  vast  territories,  and  labor  of  every  kind  needed 
for  the  conquest  over  these  barren  and  boundless  solitudes,  they,  too,  imported 


vl  INTRODUCTION. 

tility  to  those  of  Europe,  but  it  convinccfl  the  upholders  of  the  latter  that  thiij  bnstl- 
lity  coulJ  never  Ci-ust-  until  one  or  the  other  was  overthrown. 

Fortunately,  too.  Tor  the  friends  of  niDtiarchy  and  privilefje,  materials  oxistfd 
which  only  uiM-ded  to  be  lulroitly  managed  to  strike  a  f  Ion  and  perhaps  deadly  blow 
at  the  new  system,  without  the  risks  of  war,  or  even  those  ordinarily  d  p-iident 
on  failure  of  any  kind  ;  and  which,  if  puccesfful  at  all,  would  be  wholly  so,  fjr  it 
was  at  the  centre,  the  heart,  the  very  sources  of  life  itnelf,  that  the  blow  would  bo 
aimed.  One-sixth  of  our  population  were  negroes — a  subordinate  social  element — 
which,  incorporated  and  anjilgaraated  with  the  white  citizen'^hip.  wonhl  so  d'base 
and  di-'teriorate  the  latter,  that  equality  would  be  undermined,  lost  and  annihilated 
altogether,  and  Duin  )cracy  rendered  impracticable  and  impossible  for  ever. 

Will  any  one  doubt  this,  or  venture  to  say  that  we  might  incorporate  the  nf^gro 
element  of  our  population  with  the  white  citizenship,  and  yet  pres.Tve  our  institu- 
tions, the  purity  of  our  principles,  the  life  of  our  democritic  system  ?  If  there  arc 
Buch,  they  have  only  to  cu-st  their  eyes  to  thj  populations  soutVi  of  us  to  witness  the 
ruin,  the  degradation,  the  punishment,  misery,  and  even  death  that  follows  all  mch 
attempts  to  incorporate  dillerent  races  into  the  same  system  :  and  the  negro  ele- 
ment being  still  further  removed  from  us,  would,  were  the  British  or  abolition 
theory  reduced  to  practice,  bring  upon  us  only  a  more  rapid  and  more  fearful 
punishment. 

It  is  not  to  bo  supposed  that  English  and  European  statesmen  understood  this 
matter,  in  what  way  or  manner  the  ruin  and  overthrow  of  the  new  ideas  they  so 
dreaded  could  be  accomplished  by  means  of  this  negro  element  of  our  population, 
but  instinct,  if  not  reason,  taught  them  that  it  might  be  decisive  and  ovei  whelming. 
It  is,  indeed,  prob  ible  that  in  the  first  instance  they  merely  resorted  to  that  tradi- 
tional maxim  of  the  British  aristocracy,  divide  and  conquer,  which  has  come  down 
from  tlie  old  Norm.iu  nobility,  aud  which  has  been  and  is  now  the  leading  principle 
of  British  policy. 

Here  was  one-sixth  of  the  population  shut  out  from  all  the  chances  and  enjoy- 
ments of  political  and  social  intercourse,  a.id  which,  though  they  were  unable  to  ap- 
peal to  it.  or  to  use  it  as  a  national  instrument  for  attacking  the  repu'dic  in  the 
ordinary  way,  mig'.thi  wieldod  in  som;  mode  or  form,  p-nhaps  equally  or  even 
more  etkctive,  though  that  mode  or  form  was  indefinite  and  inip\lpvble  tu  the  Bri- 
tish mind.  But  bj  this  as  it  may,  or  whatever  may  have  been  the  reaMinings 
of  the  enemies  of  democratic  institutions,  the  motives  and  the  results  arrived  at 
admit  of  no  doul»t  whatever.  Their  system,  if  it  may  be  called  thus,  rested  on  wrong, 
on  falsehood,  o;\  the  ignorance,  poverly,  aud  degradation  of  the  misses — ours  on 
the  principles  of  eternal  truth,  ou  the  natural  and  inalienable  right  of  all  (white) 
men  to  the  sam-  p)litc.il  privileges  and  legil  rights;  and  the  instinctive  hostility 
of  oppiwing  systems,  the  innate  and  irreco;icilal)le  conflict  of  hostile  pr'nc  pies, 
the  necessary  warlarj  of  truth  and  fa!s  hood,  of  right  and  wrong,  of  light 
and  darkae.ss,  impelled  them,  and  now  impels  them,  and  always  will  impel 
th^'m,  to  nuke  war  upon  us  openly  or  secretly,  in  the  battle-lielil.  or  the  still  more 
dangerous  liolJ  of  opinion,  until  one  or  the  other  is  overthrown,  until  Democracy 
and  Democr.itic  in^titutioIl3  arc  the  recognized  order  of  European  society,  or  cor- 
rupted by  Harope.in  opinion  and  enfeebled  by  monarchical  inlluences.  we  adopt 
their  dogma  of  a  single  race,  and  in  vain  and  impio\is  eflorts  to  reduce  it  to  prac- 
tice, colla|)se  into  the  ruin,  degradation,  and  social  destruction  of  our  neighbors, 
the  heterogeneous  and  amilgam.ited  hordes  of  Mexico.  Central  America.  Ac. 

This  instinctive  hostility,  blind  as  it  may  have  been  at  lirst,  therefore  impelled 
the  enemies  of  liberty  to  avail  themselves  of  this  negro  element  for  the  overt  irow 
of  liberty.    British  and  European  writers  set  up  the  theory  or  dogma  of  a  single 


INTRODUCTION.  rU 

-race;  that  the  negro.  Indian,  &c.,  of  America  had  the  same  nature,  the  same  wants, 
and  therefore  the  same  rights  as  white  men;  and  the  British  government,  under 
the  youngir  Fitt,  f  illowed  clo?e  upon  the  heels  of  those  writers  to  reduce 
the  dogma  to  practice.  They  be^an  the  warfare  by  an  attaclc  on  the  African 
'•slave"  trade  ;  and  under  the  lead  of  Wilbcrforce,  perhaps  the  sleeltcst  and  most 
adroit  hj'pocrile  the  world  cvirsaw,  they  enlisted  nearly  tlie  entire  moral  and  re- 
ligions sentiimnt  of  England,  and  with  the  close  connection  and  almost  absolute 
submission  of  the  sam  •  classes  among  ourselvts  to  British  opinion,  they  obtained 
at  the  very  beginning  the  support  and  sympathy  of  the  religious  world  in  behalf 
of  a  cause  not  merely  founded  on  falsehood,  but  which,  if  successful,  would  work 
out  evi's  to  human  kind  and  to  all  concerned  so  stupendous  as  to  be  beyond  the 
possibilities  of  our  language  to  measure  or  to  express  them.  Wilberforce  was  a 
narrow-minded  bigot,  of  the  most  bigoted  school  of  British  Toryism ,  and  in  his  long 
parliamentary  career,  probably  never  missed  a  vote  when  new  burthens  were  to 
be  imposed  upon  the  peopl  ■,  or  any  chance  offered  for  strengthening  the  tyranny 
under  whicli  the  millions  groped  their  way  through  a  dark  and  cheerless  exist- 
ence; and  the  simple  fact  thatsuch  aman  was  the  leader  and  champion  of  the  cause 
of  "  humanity "  and  "  liberty,"'  was  itself  an  unmistakable  proof  of  its  false- 
hood. But  here.  too.  as  in  the  subsequent  phases  of  the  mighty  imposture,  multi- 
tudes of  good,  honest,  and  well  meaning  people  labored  under  a  misconception. 
The  African  '"slave"  trade,  when  isolated  or  viewed  by  itself,  seemed,  and  perhaps 
was  in  many  r<S[)f'cts.  cnul  and  inhuman,  and  therefore  it  was  natural  that  moral 
and  relig'ous  people  were  anxious  to  put  it  down  and  interdict  it  altogether  ;  but 
while  this  was  the  profss  d  oliject  of  the  British  government,  it  was,  in  fact,  a 
mere  incident  in  the  British  (negro)  policy.  That  policy  is  now,  if  it  was  not 
then,  perfectly  clear  and  distinct.  It  was,  and  it  is,  to  reduce  to  practice  the 
teachings  of  British  and  monarchical  writers,  to  equalize  races — to  "abolish"  the 
distinclions  tl;at  s  parate  negroes  from  white  men— in  short,  to  carry  out  in  prac- 
tice the  dogma  or  doctrine  cf  a  single  race,  and  putting  down  the  "  slave"  trade 
was  only  an  incident,  a  single  step  in  the  monstrous  programme.  There  were 
other  causes  al^o  in  operation  at  the  time  which  compelled  the  British  government 
to  make  its  anti-"  tlaveiy"  or  free  negro  efforts  in  America  one  of  the  most  pro- 
minent features  of  its  general  policy.  The  teachings  of  Voltaire  and  the  Encyclo- 
pediasts  had  borne  thrir  fruits,  and  the  long-suffering  and  voiceless  millions  in 
France  had  risen  wiih  a  strength  as  terrible  as  it  was  irresistible,  sweeping  away 
kings  and  nobles,  and  every  form  of  wrong  and  oppression  almost  in  a  f^ingle  day; 
and  the  ."spirit  thus  aroiis;  d  threatened  to  spread  over  all  Europe,  and  to  accom- 
plish thi;  same  results  in  every  nation.  The  British  aristocracy  then  became  the 
rallying  print  for  the  enemies  of  the  people — the  centre  of  hope,  the  very  sheet ; 
anchor  of  the  old  oppre  sion«,  which  for  centuries  had  crushed  and  brutalized  the  * 
millions,  and  this  pretended  love  of  liberty  in  America  served  to  blind  and  delude 
the  masses  in  England,  and  thus  to  reconcile  them  to  the  warfare  carried  on  against 
liberty  in  Europe.  But  the  five  hundred  millions  wrung  from  the  sweat  and  toil 
and  degradation  and  misery  of  English  laborers,  to  put  down  the  "  slave  trade," 
and  give  liberty  to  negroes  in  America,  was  expended  for  crushing  out  liberty  as 
ab.solutely.  though  not  fo  directly,  as  the  three  thousand  millions  expended  in 
Europe.  ImUed  it  was  infinitely  worse  and  infinitely  more  atrocious  in  the  results 
woiked  out,  for  to  simply  crush  out  the  rights  of  the  people  in  Europe  wa<  kind- 
ness and  mercy  in  comparison  with  the  evils  dependent  on  the  success  of  their 
"free"  negro  policy  in  America. 

With  our  mental  habits  borrowed  from  Europe,  and  the  almost  abject  submia- 
Bion  to  British  opinion,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  these  stupendous  efforts  to  delude 


Tiii  INTRODUCTION. 

U3  into  the  adoption  of  British  ''anti-f-lavery''  ideas,  and  the  rapport  of  their  "anti- 
Blavery''  policy,  would  b'  measurably  Miccessful.  On  a  hasty  and  suptrticial  view, 
it  seemed  to  be  the  cause  of  morality  and  religion,  and  therefore  the  Church,  the 
mnistiy,  the  entire  religious  body  among  us  becam-infcted,  more  or  Uss,  w  ith  th  8 
moial  I'prosy — a  leprosy  a  thou-and  tim'  s  over  more  fatal,  and,  wht-n  disclosed  in 
its  real  character,  more  hideous  tiian  ever  curs'.'d  Jlw  or  fc'yrian  in  the  days  of 
old.  It  pi-rvaded  all  classes  and  poi-ou'  d  all  minds,  and,  strangest  of  all,  it  per- 
verted the  Juilic'ary;  and  though  lawyers  as  a  class  are  usually  literal  and  mat- 
ter-of-fact in  their  mental  habits,  th"y  have  been  led  by  this  world-wide  diliison  to 
utterly  ignore  fact,  and  distort  rtason  itself  into  the  grossest  folly.  An  Eiiglis-h 
judge  had  dticiiled  that  by  the  common  law  all  white  m'  n  were  free  in  England,  and 
therefore  dLschar>.'ed  a  negro  from  the  control  of  h  s  master,  who  had  brought  him 
to  London!  This  English  precedent,  like  most  British  precedents,  was  accepted  by 
our  Courts  as  the  rule,  unqu,>8tionjd  and  unquestionable,  and  therefore  '"slavery" 
became  wiih  American  jurists,  as  well  as  politicians,  the  creature  of  the  lex  loci, 
without  name  or  habitation  in  tiie  world,  except  that  given  it  by  municipal  law; 
and  yet  no  such  law  could  be  found,  or  can  now  b?  found  in  all  America !  And 
th's  ruling  of  Chief  Justice  Mansfi.  Id,  until  quite  recently,  has  been  univer- 
sally admitted.  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Webster,  Colonel  Benton — all  the  great  lawyers  and 
eminent  legislator;?,  have  assumed  that  •'  slavery,''  tho  social  subordination  of  the 
negro,  th  •  ijatural  relation  of  the  diverse  elements  that  compose  our  populatio.i, 
wase.-tabli-hed  by  municipal  law,  and  therefore  could  have  no  existeace  beyond 
the  sjih  re  of  such  law  ! 

Such  hal  be(n  the  Briti-h  prec;  dent,  and  their  opinions,  already  perverted  by 
British  and  Europ  a;i  writers.  They  never  doabted  its  soundness,  though  it  obvi- 
ously has  no  foundation  of  fact,  and  therefore  involves  a  palpable  absurdity.  For 
many  years  but  little  mischi'  f  attended  thd  false  theories  and  absurd  as-'umptions 
prevai.ing  on  the  subj-  ct  as  far  as  these  States  were  concomrd,  though  the  practi- 
cal anti-'-  slavery"  policy  of  England  has  demoralized  and  destroyed  the  countries 
Bouth  of  our  limits. 

But  a  lime  has  now  come  when  this  ial.^ehood  and  folly  can  be  indulged  no 
longer  without  carrying  with  it  infinite  danger — indeed,  the  certainty  of  destruc- 
tion to  the  Union  itself— in  f.ict.  the  le.\st  of  evils,  in  comparison  with  the  practical 
success  of  the  British  or  anti-slavery  theory.  The  negro  clement  has  expanded 
into  four  millions— every  one  knows  that  it  must  remain  here  forever— it  is  rapidly 
increasing,  and  the  time,  therefore,  is  at  hand  when  the  false  theories  so  long  im- 
posed on  our  people  must  be  e.xploded,  and  the  true  status  of  this  race  fixed  be- 
yond question.  It  therefore  was  no  accident,  still  less  was  it  by  management  of 
any  kind,  that  this  Dred  Scott  case  was  brought  before  the  Supreme  Court  for  a 
final  decision,  by  the  highest  legal  authority  in  the  Republic  or  on  the  continent. 
The  facts  in  the  case,  as  sU^ted  elsewhere,  were  perfectly  simple,  and  the  inference 
from  these  f  icts  un  ivoidable.  A  master  had  carried  his  '-slave"  [Dred  Scottl  into 
the  feder.il  Territories,  and  as  there  w.is  no  local  or  municipal  law  fstnblisliing 
"slavery"'  in  these  Territories,  according  to  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  English  chief 
justice,  and  so  long  and  disgracefally  submitted  to  by  .\morican  courts,  the  'slave" 
w.is  entitled  to  freedom!  But  the  Supreme  Court,  conlining  itself  to  the  actual, 
historical  and  material  facts  involved,  reversed  the  foreign  and  monarchic.il  rule. 
The  progenitors  of  this  negro  (Dred  Scott)  were  brought  here  'slaves;"  the  off- 
•ipring  followed  the  condition  of  the  parents — there  was  no  local  law  or  municipal 
regulation  altering  this  condition  in  the  present  instance — therefore  Dred  Scott 
rem  lined  in  that  condi  ion.  a  so-called  slave. 

Could  anything  bo  clearer,  more  logical  or  truthful,  than  this  decision  ?    Of 


INTRODUCTION.  ix 

course,  slavery  or  freedom  has  nothing  to  do  wiih  the  mntlcr.  They  arc  terms  of 
comparison,  having  reference  to  conditions  of  our  own  race,  and  are  utier  per- 
versions, misapplication?,  absurdiii's,  when  applird  to  negroes;  but  as  we  have  no 
other  terms  familiar  to  the  common  mind,  we  mu'^t,  lor  tlic  present  at  least,  con- 
tinue to  employ  them  in  this  connection.  The  court  simply  called  on  the 
other  side  to  show  any  law,  if  it  could,  altering  the  status  of  this  negro,  and  as  that 
did  not  exist,  or  was  not  forthcoming,  of  course  it  decided  that  Died  Scott's  condi- 
tion remained  the  same  as  his  progenitors',  and  therefore  directed  him  to  be  re- 
turned to  his  master.  But  the  anti-"slavery  ze;xlots  insist  that  the  "Missouri 
Compromise"  was  such  law;  that  Congress,  having  omct  d  a  hiw  forbid- 
ding the  introduction  of  negro  '-slaves."  that  those  carried  into  the  Territory  became 
ipsofacto  free  men.  This  is  simply  absurd,  so  far  as  the  status  of  the  negro  is  con- 
cerned, whatever  may  be  the  political  quesiion  involved.  If  Congress  had  power 
to  exclude  "  slave"  owners  from  the  Territories,  it  no  more  followed  that  the 
"slave''  should  become  a  ''freeman"  than  that  his  skin  should  become  white  ;  but 
the  court  also  held  that  as  this  was  a  federation  of  States.  Congress  had  no  power 
to  exclude  any  class  of  citizens,  and  therefore  that  the  Missouri  compromise  was 
unconstitutional. 

At  last,  then,  and  in  conclusion,  we  have  reached  the  culm'nating  point  of  the 
■wildest,  the  most  senseless,  the  most  disgusting,  and  wilhal  the  most  dangerous  de- 
lusion that  ever  afQicted  an  intelligent  people,  or  threatened  to  destroy  the 
peace,  order,  and  safety  of  human  society. 

Whatever  the  course  or  the  legislation  of  sovereign  States,  henceforth  and  for- 
ever the  status  of  the  negro,  his  relation  to  the  white  citzens,  and  the  rights  of 
the  latter  in  respect  to  "slave"  property,  are  now  clearly  defined  within  the  Federal 
jurisdiction.  And  this  decision  must  be  accepted  and  sustained  by  the  northern 
masses,  or  there  must  be  disunion  and  dismemberment  of  the  Union  ;  for  the 
States  and  people  having  this  negro  element  in  their  midst,  cannot,  even  if  they 
would,  consent  to  any  compromise  in  this  rcsp?ct,  and  therefore  if  the  northern 
people,  led  astray  by  the  agents  and  dupes  of  the  enemies  of  Democracy,  refuse 
to  abide  by  it,  there  is  for  the  south  no  alternative  but  disunion  and  the  esta- 
blishment of  a  new  confederacy  in  conformity  with  the  wants  and  necessities  of 
southern  society.  It  remains,  then,  for  the  honest  and  patriolic  citizens  of  the 
North  who  would  avoid  this  calamity  of  disunion,  and  save  for  their  offspring  the 
glorious  institutions  won  by  the  blood  and  .sacrifices  of  their  fathers,  to  abandon 
the  false  mental  habits  imposed  on  them  by  the  enemies  of  these  institutions, 
and,  accepting  the  fixed  and  immutable  truths  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  to 
regard  as  enemies  to  the  peace  of  the  country,  and  indeed  to  the  safety  of 
society,  all  those  who,  under  the  pretence  of  negro  liberty,  would  render  libertj 
for  tb«  white  man  impossible. 


SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

DECEMBER  TERM,  1856. 


DEED    SCOTT 


versus 


JOHN    F.     A..   SANDFORD. 


Pred  Scott,  Plaintiff  in  Error,  v.  John  F.  A.  Sandford. 

I. 

1.  Upon  a  writ  of  error  to  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  the  transcript  of  the  record  of  all 
the  proceedings  in  the  case  is  brought  before  this  court,  and  is  op'.n  to  its  in-ipecliou  and  rei  isioii. 

2.  When  a  p'ea  to  the  jurisdiction,  in  abatement,  is  overruled  by  the  court  up<in  demurrer,  :ind  the 
defendant  ph  ads  in  bar,  and  upon  these  pleas  the  final  judgmeut  o;  the  court  is  in  his  liiviir — 
if  the  p'aintiff  lirings  a  writ  of  error,  the  jud.ment  of  the  court  upon  the  jdea  in  al)atement 
is  biifore  this  cnurt.  alihnugh  it  was  in  favor  of  the  plaintitT— and  if  tlie  court  ened  in  ovenu  iiig 
it,  the  judgmen!  must  be  reversed,  and  a  mandate  issued  to  the  Circuit  Court  to  dismiss  the  ease 
for  want  of  juris  iictiun. 

8.  In  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States,  the  recorl  must  show  that  the  case  is  one  in  which 
by  the  Constitution  an  1  laws  of  tlie  United  S  ates,  the  court  lia  i  jurisdiction — and  if  this  docs  not 
appear,  and  the  court  sives  jul.;m  nt  ei  her  fir  plaintiff  or  def  niant,  it  is  error,  and  the  jmlg- 
ment  must  be  revered  by  this  court — and  the  parties  cannot  by  consent  waive  the  objection  to 
the  jur.sdiclion  of  the  Circuit  Court. 

4.  A  free  negro  of  the  A'rican  race,  whose  ancestor's  were  brought  to  this  country  and  sold  as  slaves, 
is  liol  a  ••  c  tizen"  within  the  meaning cif  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Slates. 

6.  When  the  Constitution  wasadoptid,  they  were  not  regarded  in  any  of  the  Stales  as  mem^^ersof  the 
commun  ty  whicli  constituted  t::e  s  ate,  an  1  were  n  it  numbered  among  its  "  pei>iile  or  citizens." 
Consequent'y,  the  speci  1  riglits  and  imm  in  ties  guaiantie  I  tocitizi-ns  do  not  apply  to  them.  AikI 
not  being  "  citizens  "  witliin  the  meaning  of  the  Coustitution,  tliey  are  not  entilleii  lo  sue  in  that 
character  in  a  court  of  the  United  .Stales,  and  the  Circuit  Cmrl  has  not  jurisdict  on  in  such  a  suit. 

6.  The  only  two  c-iuse-i  in  tlie  Constitution  whirh  point  to  this  ric,  treat  thtm  as  persons  whom  it 
was  morally  lawful  to  dual  in  as  artic !es  of  properly  and  to  hold  as  slaves. 

7.  Since  the  adoption  of  the  Con-ititutinn  of  the  Unite  1  Stiites,  no  state  can  by  any  suhspquent  law 
mike  a  foreigner  or  any  otl.er  de-cription  of  person  .  citizens  of  the  United  Slates,  nor  eulille  Ihein 
to  the  rights  and  priv  leges  se  ured  lo  citizens  hy  that  instrument. 

8.  A  State,  by  its  laws  pas-ed  since  the  a  'opt  on  of  tlie  Const  tution,  miy  put  a  foreigner  or  any 
other  description  of  pt-rsmis  upon  a  footing  with  its  own  cit  wns,  as  to  all  the  ri.;hts  and  i  rivilei^es 
enjoye  i  by  them  witliin  its  dom.nion,  and  by  its  laws.  But  that  wid  not  mike  ..in)  a  (•itiz<Mi  of  Uie 
United  Slates,  nor  entitle  him  to  sue  in  its  courts,  nor  to  any  of  the  privU  ties  aud  imiuuniiitg  of 
a  citizen  in  ano.her  State. 

0.  The  change  in  pubic  opinion  and  feelintr  in  rela'ion  to  the  African  race,  which  has  t.iken  pl.ncc 
giuce  the  adipt  on  o  the  Constitution,  cannot  change  its  construction  ami  ini-anlng,  an.i  it  must 
be  construed  and  administeiei  now  acuoiding  to  its  true  meaning  and  iuteuliou  when  il  was  for- 
med and  adopted. 

10.  The  plaintdf  having  admitted,  by  liis  demurrer  to  the  pica  in  abatement,  thut  his  ancestorH  were 
iniporte<l  from  A.iica  and  sdd  as  slaves,  he  i~  not  a  citizen  of  the  Sale  of  .Missouri  a.  coriiiii^  to  the 
Const. tution  of  the  United  States,  and  was  not  eniilK-d  to  sue  in  that  character  in  the  Circuit 
.Oiurt. 

11.  Till-  being  the  rase,  the  judgment  of  the  court  below,  in  avor  of  the  plaiutitf  on  the  plea  la 
abatement,  was  erruneuua. 


11  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

n. 

1.  Bu»  if  the  p'e'*  in  aMtement  in  not  brought  up  by  thin  writ  of  <Tror,  the  obje'tion  to  the  citii- 
ennhip  of  til-  pl.ilntifT  is  still  appart-nt  "U  the  recor.l,  as  he  iiim-elf.  in  mikin:?  out  liLs  cm'^e,  nt  itej 
that  lie  it  "{  Afi  a  i  ilesceiit,  wa-  born  a  vlaTC,  :«n  1  c'.aimt  tliat  he  an  1  his  family  b  cvine  entitle  1 
to  fre^-d  m  by  bein?  taken  by  their  owner  to  rcmde  in  a  territory  wliere  niavery  it  prohibiiel  by  act 
d  Cuitgrv'!- — an  1  that,  in  addition  to  thi'i  claim,  he  liim  elf  becam  ■  entitled  to  fre  d  .m  b,  bein^ 
taken  to  Kock  Ulaiid,  in  the  State  of  Illinois — and  being  free  when  he  wa:i  brough:  back  lo  Mutdouri, 
he  was  by  tiie  laws  of  that  State  a  citizen. 

S.  If,  therefore,  the  fjcta  he  states  do  not  ^ive  him  or  his  family  a  rt|;ht  to  freedom,  the  plaiotilT  is 
still  :i  >'avc,  ami  not  entitled  to  sue  as  a  "  citii-n,"  an  1  the  jud.ra-nt  of  the  Circuit  Courl  wa« 
erri'neous  on  that  ground  also,  without  any  reference  to  the  pl»;i  in  abatement. 

5.  The  Circuit  Court  cm  give  no  judgment  fT  plaintiff  or  defen'lant  m  a  case  wher-"  it  lia<  not  juris- 
dictinn.  no  matter  whether  there  be  a  plea  in  abatement  or  not.  And  unless  .t  appeir-i  upon  the 
faie  of  tue  ;erord,  wlien  b  ought  here  by  writ  of  errur,  that  the  Circuit  Court  had  jur.Mliclim,  the 
juilgment  must  be  reversed. 

The  cas  '  of  Caprou  r.  Van  Noorden  (2  Cranch,  126)  examined,  and  the  principles  thereby  decided, 
reaffirmed. 

4.  When  the  recrd,  a«  brought  here  by  writ  of  error,  does  n  't  show  that  the  Circuit  Court  hid  ju- 
risdiciion,  this  court  has  jurisdiction  to  reTise  ani  correct  the  error,  like  any  other  ernr  in  tbo 
court  b  low.  It  does  not  and  cannot  dismiss  the  ca^e  fir  want  of  junsiliction  here  ;  for  that  would 
leave  th-  erroneous  jud;.;men:  of  the  court  b-low  in  fill  force,  anJ  the  pa  ty  :njured  with  -ut  rem- 
edy. Rut  il  must  reverse  the  ju  Igment,  an  1,  as  in  any  other  ca<e  of  reversal,  send  a  mandate  to 
the  Circuit  C  >urt  to  conform  its  judgment  to  the  opinion  of  this  court. 

6.  The  ilifferen'-e  of  the  jurisdiction  in  this  court  in  the  cises  of  writs  of  error  to  State  courts  and  to 
Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States,  pointed  out  ;  and  the  mistakes  ma  le  as  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  court  in  the  latter  case,  by  confounding  it  with  its  lim.te  1  juris  lictim  in  the  former. 

0.  If  the  court  reverses  a  jud;^ent  upon  the  ground  that  it  appears  by  a  p.articular  part  of  the  re- 
cord that  the  Circuit  Court  hid  not  jurisdiction,  it  does  not  takeaway  the  jurinJiction  of  thi-i  court 
to  exauiin  •  into  and  correct,  by  a  reversal  of  the  j.id^m  'nt,  any  other  errors,  either  as  to  the  ju- 
risdiction or  any  other  matter,  where  it  appsars  from  other  parts  of  the  recor  I  t!iat  the  Circuit 
Court  had  l.iUeii  :nto  error.  Dn  the  contrary,  it  is  the  daily  an  i  familiir  practice  of  thu  court  to 
reverse  on  several  grounds,  where  more  than  on?  error  appears  to  have  b?en  committed.  And  the 
error  of  a  Circuit  Court  in  its  juris  licti  m  stands  on  the  same  i^round,  and  i«  to  be  treated  in  the 
same  manner  as  any  other  error  upon  which  its  judgment  is  founded. 

7.  The  decision,  therefore,  that  the  juigment  of  the  Circuit  Court  upon  the  plea  in  ahatement  is  er- 
rnneous,  is  no  rea-on  why  the  alleged  error  apparent  in  tlieexception  should  not  al<o  be  examined, 
anil  the  judgment  reversed  on  that  ground  aUo,  if  it  discloses  a  want  of  jurisdiction  ia  the  Cir- 
cuit Court. 

It  is  often  the  duty  of  this  court,  after  having  decided  that  a  particular  deci-ion  of  the  Circuit 
Court  was  erroneous,  to  examine  into  otiier  al  egi-d  errors,  and  to  correct  them  if  tliey  are  found  to 
esist.  .Anl  tills  has  been  uniformly  d)ne  by  this  court,  when  the  questions  are  in  any  degree  con- 
oecte  I  with  tlie  controversy,  and  the  silence  of  the  court  might  create  doubts  Wuich  would  lead  to 
further  and  use  .ess  litigation. 

in. 

1.  The  facts  upon  which  the  plaintiCT  relies  did  not  give  him  his  freedom,  and  make  him  a  citizen  of 
tIis.souri. 

5.  The  clause  in  the  Constitution  authorising  Congress  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  r^gulatinns  for 
the  gover.ira-nt  of  the  territory  and  other  pripert,'  of  the  Unite!  States,  appliei  only  to  territory 
within  the  c'.iarti-rel  limits  of  some  one  of  the  States  when  they  wre  ol  nies  of  (Jreat  Brit.iin, 
an  I  which  was  surrendered  by  the  Brit  sh  Guvernmeat  to  the  oli  Confederation  of  the  States,  in  the 
treaty  of  pjicc.  It  d  >es  nr>t  appiy  to  territory  ac<iair.-d  by  the  present  Federal  Government,  by 
treaty  or  conquest,  from  a  foreign  nation. 

Th-  cue  of  thu  .Vinjrican  an  I IJ  e an  Insurance  Companies  v.  Canter  (1  Peters,  511 )  referred  to  and 
examined,  sh  iwing  that  the  d  -cision  in  this  case  is  n  it  in  conflict  with  that  opinion,  an  1  that  the 
court  did  n  it,  in  the  case  referr  -d  to,  decide  up  tn  the  construction  of  the  cla  ise  of  the  Constitution 
above  mentioned,  because  the  case  bel^ure  them  did  not  make  it  ne.essiry  to  decide  the  question. 

S.  The  United  States,  under  the  present  Constitution,  cann  it  acjuire  territory  to  be  held  as  a  colony , 
to  he  governo  I  at  its  will  an  1  pleasure.  Bat  it  may  acjuire  territory  which,  at  the  time,  has  not  a 
popul tliiin  that  fits  it  to  becom^i  a  S  ate,  and  miy  govern  it  as  a  T  rrit  ry  until  it  \in  a  popula- 
tion which,  in  the  judgment  of  Congress,  entitles  it  to  b«  admitted  as  a  State  of  the  Union. 

4.  D.iriiig  the  ti  ne  it  remains  a  Territory.  Cin^reis  miy  legislate  over  it  within  the  S'^ope  of  its  coa- 
stilutioiial  powers  in  relation  to  ci  izens  of  the  United  Stite< — an  I  miy  establish  a  Te.Titorial  Gov- 
ernment— and  the  form  of  this  locil  Government  must  b-  rejuLated  by  the  dis  ret  on  of  lx>n- 
gre-s,  but  with  powers  not  exceeilmg  those  which  Congress  itself,  by  the  Constitution,  is  authorised 
to  exercise  over  oitizeos  of  the  United  States,  in  respect  to  their  rights  uf  persons  or  rights  of  pro- 
perty. 

IV. 

L  The  territory  thus  acquired,  is  acquired  by  the  p>ip\e  of  the  Unite!  States  for  their  common  and 

equ  il  b  !:ij:it,  thrjavh  their  aj  -nt  au  1  trjstee,  tiu  KeJer  lI  Goveriraent.     C  ingress  c\n  exercise  no 

p  "••r  o»nr  t  le  rigiits  of  p srions  or  property  of  a  citixon  in  the  Territory  whi.h  is  pro.ijbited  by  the 

\   C  MKtitution.     Tiij  Gaveriimtnt  an  1  the  citii»n,  whenDver  the  Territory  is  open  to  settlement,  both 

•    enter  it  with  thoir  res  ective  rights  define  1  an  1  liinitel  hy  the  Constitution. 

IS.   Concresi  have  n>  right  to  prohibit  the  citizens  of  any  particular  Stite  or  States  from   taking  up 
,    thjir  110  n  •  there,  wiiile  it  permits  citizens  of  other  States  to  cio  so.     .Vor  ha*  it  a  right  to  give  prir- 
Iloges  to  one  class  of  citizens  which  it  refuse*  to  another.     The  territory  is  ac'iuired  for  tlieir  equal 
I    and  comiuoa  beasllt — and  if  open  to  any,  it  must  be  open  to  all  upon  e^ual  and  the  same  term*. 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  IS 

8.  Every  citizen  ha*  a  riiht  to  take  with  him  into  the  Terriiory  any  article  of  property  which  the 
Const'ituti.  n  of  the  United  States  recognises  as  property. 

4.  The  Constitution  of  the  Unite  1  States  recognises  slaves  as  properly,  and  pledges  the  Federal  Got- 
ernnv,  nt  to  protect  it.  And  Congress  cannot  exerci-e  any  more  aullio:ily  over  property  of  that  des- 
cription tlian  it  may  constitutionally  exerci.se  over  property  ol  nny  other  kind. 

6.  Tlie  act  of  Tonsress,  therefore,  prohibit  ng  a  citizen  of  the  Unite  1  State.'  from  taking  with  him  his 
Bhves  when  he  removes  t  i  the  Territory  in  question  to  reside,  is  an  exercise  of  authority  over  pri- 
vate propertv  whi^li  is  not  warranted  hy  the  Constitution — and  the  removal  of  the  plaintilT,  i>j  hi» 
owner,  to  that  Territory,  gave  him  no  title  to  freedom. 

.     V. 
[  1.  Tlie  plaintiff  himself  acquired  no  title  to  freedom  by  being  taken,  by  his  owner,  to  Rock  Island,  in 
Illinois,  an  I  bro  aght  back  to  Missouri.     Thi-  court  has  heretol'ore  deciled  that  the  sbitus  or  con- 
dition of  a  person  of  African  descent  depended  on  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  resided. 

2  It  has  been  .settU  d  by  the  decisions  of  the  highest  court  in  Missouri,  that  by  the  laws  of  that  State, 
a  slave  does  not  become  entitled  to  his  freedom,  where  the  owner  takes  him  to  reside  in  a  State 
where  slavery  is  not  permitted,  and  afterwards  brings  him  back  to  Missouri. 

Conclusion.  It  follows  that  it  is  apprirent  upon  the  record  that  the  court  below  erred  in  ita  judg- 
ment on  the  plea  in  abatcmc  ut,  and  also  erred  in  giving  judgment  for  the  defendant,  when  the  ex- 
ception shows  that  the  plaintilf  was  not  a  citizen  of  the  Ui.ited  States.  And  as  the  Circuit  Court 
had  no  juri>dictiMn,  either  in  the  case  stated  in  the  plea  in  abatement,  or  in  the  o:.e  stated  in  the 
exception,  its  judgment  in  favor  of  the  defeudant  is  erroneous,  and  must  be  reversed. 

Tms  case  wns  brought  up,  by  writ  of  error,  from  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  tlie  district  of  .Missouri. 

It  was  an  actina  of  tre.spais  vi  et  artnis  iostituted  ia  the  Circuit  Court  by  Scott 
agaiusi  Sai.d  Old. 

Prior  to  th;  institution  of  the  present  suit,  an  action  was  brought  by  Scott  for 
his  tieedom  in  ihe  Circuit  Court  of  St.  Louis  county,  (State  court,)  where  there 
was  a  verd  ct  and  judoment  in  his  favor.  On  a  writ  of  error  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  St  ite,  the  judgmcMit  below  was  revenged,  and  the  case  remanded  to  the  Cir- 
cuit Court,  where  it  \vasco:itinned  to  await  the  decision  of  the  easy  now  in  question. 

The  dechir:ition  of  Scott  contained  thrc  counts:  one,  that  Sand  ford  had  as- 
saulted the  plaintiff  ;  one.  tliat  he  Lad  assaulted  Harriet  Scott,  his  wife  j  and  one, 
that  he  had  assaulted  Eliza  Scott  and  Lizzie  Scott,  his  children. 

Sand  ford  ajipeared,  and  filed  the  following  plea: 
Diiii.v  Scorr  ) 

V.  >  Plea  to  the  Jurisdution  of  the  Court. 

John  F.  A.  Saxdfokd.  ) 

Apnir.  Term,  1854. 
And  the  said  John  F.  A.  Sandiord,  in  his  own  proper  person,  comes  and  says  that 
thi.<  court  o  ight  not  to  have  or  take  lurther  cognizance  of  the  action  afoiesaid,  be- 
cause lie  t^ays  that  said  cause  of  action,  and  each  and  every  of  them,  (if  any  such 
have  aceru'  d  to  the  said  Dred  Scntt,)  acciued  to  the  said  Dn-d  Scott  out  of  the  ju- 
risdiction of  this  eourt,  and  e.xclusively  within  Ih?  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  the 
State  of  .Missouri,  for  that,  to  wit:  the  said  plaintilf.  Dred  Scolt,  is  not  a  citizen  of 
the  State  of  Mis~onri,  as  alleged  iu  his  declaration,  because  he  is  a  negro  of  African 
descent ;  his  ancestors  were  of  pure  African  blood,  and  were  brous^Ut  into  this 
country  and  sold  as  negro  slaves,  and  this  the  said  Sandford  is  ready  to  verify. 
Wherefore  lie  prays  judgment  whether  this  court  can  or  will  take  farther  cognizance 
ot  the  action  atoresaid. 

John  F.  A.  Saxdford. 

To  this  plf-a  there  was  a  demurrer  in  the  usual  form,  which  was  argued  in  April, 
1854,  when  th  •  <  ourt  gave  judgment  that  the  demurrer  should  be  sustained. 

In  May,  18.5L  the  d  fendant,  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  between  couqecI,  and 
with  the  have  of  the  court,  pleaded  in  bar  of  the  action: 

1.  Not  guilty. 

2.  That  the  plaintiff  wa<5  a  negro  slave,  the  lawful  property  of  the  defendant, 
and,  as  such,  the  d  f  ;ndaiit  gently  laid  his  hands  upon  him,  and  thereby  had  only 
restrained  lim.  as  th'i  dfendant  had  a  right  to  do, 

3.  That  with  ro-p  'Ct  to  the  wife  and  danghters  of  the  plaintiff,  in  the  second  and 
third  counts  of  the  declaration  in<  ntioned,  the  defendant  had,  as  to  them,  only  acted 
in  the  sam-  mimer,  and  in  virtue  of  the  same  legal  right. 

In  the  first  of  these  pleas,  the  plaintiflf  joined  i.ssne  ;  and  to  the  second  and  third 
filed  replications  allejiing  that  the  d  feiidant,  of  his  own  wrong  and  without  the 
cauie  in  his  second  and  third  pleasi  alleged,  committed  the  trespasses,  Sm. 


14  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

The  cownecl  then  filed  the  following  agreed  ptatement  of  fact.",  viz : 

lu  the  year  18:U,  tin;  pi  lintilf  wis  u  ii.'Kro  slave  bel.)nging  to  Dr.  Em'^runn,  who 
was  a  surgto:i  in  the  army  of  the  Unit-d  States.  In  that  yeir,  18;J4,  paid  Dr.  Em- 
erson tcok  the  pliintift"  Irom  the  Stati.'  of  .Missouri  to  the  rcilitary  post  at  Hock  Is- 
land in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  held  him  there  as  a  slave  until  the  month  of  April 
or  .May,  1836.  At  the  time  la.«t  mentioned,  "-aid  Dr.  Emerson  removed  the  plaintiff 
from  s.iid  military  post  at  Kock  Island  to  the  military  post  at  Fort  Snelllng,  situate 
on  thi;  west  bank  of  th  -  Mississippi  river,  in  the  Teiritnry  known  as  Upper  Lonsi- 
ana,  acquired  by  th"  United  States  of  France,  and  situate  north  of  the  latitude  of 
thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  north,  and  north  of  the  Stale  of  Missouri.  Said 
Dr.  Einer80u''held  the  plaintitf  in  slavery  at  said  Fort  Suelliug,  from  said  Jast-men- 
tioned  date  until  the  year  1838. 

In  the  year  1835,  Harriet  wliots  nanirl  m  the  second  count  of  the  plaintiffs  dec- 
laration, WIS  the  nej;ro  slave  of  Major  Taliaferro,  who  belonged  to  the  army  of  the 
United  States.  In  that  year,  IBS.'},  said  Major  Talialerro  took  said  Harriet  to  said 
Fori  Snelliiig,  a  military  post,  situated  as  hereinbefore  stated,  and  kept  her  there  as 
a  slave  until  thi!  year  1830,  and  th-  n  sold  and  delivered  iier  as  a  slave  at  said  Fort 
Sneiling  unto  the  said  Dr.  Emerson  hereinbefore  named.  Said  Dr.  EmiTsOu  held 
sad  Harriet  in  slavery  at  said  Fort  Sneiling  until  the  yetir  1838. 

In  th  •  year  l.S3-i.  the  plaintiff  and  said  Harriet,  at  .said  Fort  Sneiling,  with  the 
consent  of  said  Dr.  Em  rson,  wlio  ti)en  claimed  to  be  their  mastir  and  owner,  inter- 
married, and  took  each  other  lor  hnsband  and  wife.  Elizi  and  L  zzie,  named  in  the 
third  count  or  the  plaintiff's  decliir.ition,  are  the  fruit  of  that  marriage.  Eiizi  is 
about  lourieen  years  old,  and  was  boin  on  board  the  steamboat  (iipscy,  north  of  the* 
north  line  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  upon  the  river  Mississippi.  Lizzie  is  about 
seven  years  old.  and  was  boru  in  the  Stale  of  Missouri,  at  the  military  post  called 
Jefferson  B  irra -ks. 

In  th  ■  year  1838,  said  Dr.  Emerson  removed  the  plaintiff  and  said  Harriet  and 
their  said  dau;^luer  Eliza,  from  said  Fort  Suelliug  to  the  State  of  Mi-souri,  where 
they  hav(!  ever  since  resided. 

Before  the  commencement  of  this  suit,  said  Dr,  Emorson  sold  and  conveyed  the 
plaintiff',  :said  Harriet,  Eliza,  and  Lizzie,  to  the  detenda;it.  as  slaves,  and  the  defen- 
dant has  ever  since  claim  d  to  hold  them  and  each  of  tin  m  as  slaves. 

At  the  tim  'S  m  ntion-'d  in  the  plaintiff's  declaration,  the  defend  int  cl  limlng  to  be 
owner  as  af'oiesaid.  laiil  his  hands  npo:i  said  plaintitf.  Harriet,  Eliza  and  Lizzie.  ;ind 
imprisoned  them,  doing  in  thi-  re-pect,  however,  no  more  than  what  he  m  ght  law- 
fully do  if  tiiey  were  of  right  his  slaves  at  sucii  times. 

Further  proof  may  be  given  on  the  trial  for  eth  r  party. 

It  is  agreed  that  Dred  Scott  brou;^ht  suit  for  h  s  freedo;n  in  the  Circuit  Court  of 
St.  Louis  county  ;  that  there  was  a  verdict  ami  jii'lgm  -nl  in  his  favor  ;  that  on  a 
writ  of  error  to  the  Snprem'  Court,  the  judgnii  nl  b^low  was  reversed,  and  the 
Bam '  remanded  to  the  Circuit  Court,  where  it  has  been  continued  to  await  the  de- 
cision of  th  s  ca-e. 

la  .May  1854,  the  cause  went  before  a  jury,  who  found  the  following  verd'ct,  viz  : 
"As  to  the  first  issue  joined  in  this  ca>e.  we  of  the  jury  fi.id  the  def  ndant  not  i>uil- 
ty ;  and  as  to  the  issue  secondly  above  joined,  we  of  ilie  jury  li.id  tliat  befon;  and  at 
the  time  when,  &c.,  in  the  first  count  nvntioned,  the  said  I'red  Sooit  was  a  n 'uno 
slave,  llie  lawful  property  ot  the  defendant ;  and  as  to  the  i.v.Hi.-  thirdly  above  join- 
ed, we,  the  jury,  find  that  before  and  at  the  time  when.  itc.  in  the  se-;ond  and  third 
counts  mentioned,  the  said  Harriet,  wife  of  said  Dred  Scott,  and  Eliza  and  Lizzie, 
the  dinixhters  of  the  said  Dred  Scott,  were  negro  slaves,  the  lawful  propjrly  of  the 
defendant.  " 

Wlieri.Mipon  the  court  gave  judgment  for  the  defendatit. 

AfuM-  an  ineffectual  motion  for  a  new  tiial,  the  plaintiff  filed  the  following  bill  of 
exceptions. 

On  (he  (rial  of  this  cause  by  the  jury,  the  plaintiff,  to  maintain  the  i.ssues  on  his 
part,  read  to  the  jury  the  following  a^ire  d  statement  of  ficls,  (see  agioement  above.) 
No  further  testimony  was  given  to  (he  jury  by  eith'  r  party.  Tuer.  upon  the  plain- 
tiff moved  the  court  to  give  to  the  jury  the  following  instruction,  viz  : 

"  Th.it  iipo  1  th  •  f'iicts  a:.,'reed  to  by  th  ■  parties,  they  ought  to  find  for  the  plantiff. 
The  court  ref'iis  d  to  give  such  instruction  to  the  jury,  and  the  plaintiff,  to  such  re- 
fusal, then  and  there  duly  excepted." 

The  court  then  gave  the  following  instruction  to  the  jury,  on  motion  of  the  defea- 
dout: 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  U 

"The  jury  are  instructed,  tbat  upon  the  facts  in  this  case,  the  law  is  with  the  de- 
fendant "    The  plaiiiliff  excc'pled  to  this  instruction. 

Upon  these  exceptions,  the  case  came  up  to  this  court. 

It  was  argued  at  December  term,  18G5,  and  ordered  to  be  reargued  at  the  preaeut 
term. 

It  was  now  argued  by  Mr.  Blair  and  JJfr.  G.  F.  Curtis  for  the  plaintiff  in  error, 
and  by  Mr.  Geyer  and  Mr.  Johnson  for  the  defendant  in  error. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  TANEY  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court 
This  case  has  been  twice  argued.  After  the  argument  of  the  last  term,  differen- 
ces of  opinion  were  found  to  exist  among  the  members  of  the  court ;  and  as  the 
questions  in  controversy  arc  of  the  highest  importance,  and  the  court  was  at  that 
time  much  pressed  by  the  ordinary  business  of  the  term,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to 
continue  the  case,  and  direct  a  reaigument  on  some  of  the  points,  in  order  that  we 
might  have  an  opportunity  of  giving  to  the  whole  subject  a  more  deliberate  consid- 
eration. It  has  accordingly  been  again  argued  by  counsel,  and  considered  by  the 
court;  and  I  now  proceed  to  deliver  its  opinion. 

There  are  two  leading  questions  presented  by  the  record  : 

1.  Had  the  Cii-cuit  Court  of  the  United  States  jurisdiction  to  hear  and  determine 
the  case  between  these  parties?    And 

2.  If  it  had  jurisdiction,  is  the  jud^jment  it  has  given  erroneous  or  not? 

The  plaiaiiff  in  error,  who  was  also  the  plaintiff  in  the  court  below,  was,  with  his 
wife  and  children,  held  as  slaves  by  the  defendant,  in  the  state  of  Missouri  ;  and  he 
brought  this  action  in  the  circuit  court  ot  the  United  States  for  that  district,  to  as- 
sert the  title  of  himself  and  his  family  to  freedom. 

The  declaration  is  in  the  form  usually  adopted  in  that  State  to  try  questions  of 
this  description,  and  contains  the  averment  necessary  to  give  the  court  jurisdiction  : 
tbat  he  and  the  defendant  are  citizens  of  different  States  ;  that  is,  that  he  is  a  citi- 
zen of  Missouri,  and  the  defendant  a  citizen  of  New  York. 

The  defendant  pleaded  in  abatement  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  that  the 
plaintiff  was  not  a  citizen  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  as  alleged  in  his  declaration, 
being  a  negro  of  African  descent,  whose  ancestors  were  of  pure  African  blood,  and 
who  were  brought  into  this  country  and  sold  as  slaves. 

To  this  plea  the  plaintiff  demurred,  and  the  defendant  joined  in  demurrer. 
The  court  overruled  the  plea,  and  gave  judgment  that  the  defendant  should 
answer  over.  And  he  therefore  put  in  sundry  pleas  in  bar,  upon  which  issues 
were  joined;  and  at  the  trial  tbe  verdict  and  judgment  were  in  hia  favor. 
■\Vhereupoa  the  plaintiff  brought  this  writ  of  error. 

Before  we  speak  of  the  pleas  in  bar,  it  will  be  proper  to  dispose  of  the  ques- 
tions which  have  arisen  on  the  plea  in  abatement 

Tbat  plea  denies  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  sue  in  a  court  of  the  United 
States,  lor  the  reasons  therein  stated. 

If  tbe  question  raised  by  it  is  legally  before  us,  and  the  court  should  be  of 
opinion  tbat  the  facts  stated  in  it  disqualify  the  plaintiff  from  becoming  a  citi- 
zen, in  the  sense  in  which  that  word  is  used  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  then  the  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  is  erroneous  and  must  be  reversed. 

It  is  suggested,  however,  that  this  plea  is  not  before  us  ;  and  tbat  as  the 
judgment  in  the  court  below  on  this  plea  was  in  favor  of  tbe  plaintiff,  he  does 
not  seek  to  reverse  it  or  bring  it  bo-fore  tbe  court  for  revision  by  his  writ  of 
error ;  and  also  that  the  defendant  waived  this  defence  by  pleading  over,  and 
thereby  admitted  tbe  jurisdiction  of  the  court 

But  in  making  this  objection,  we  think  tbe  peculiar  and  limited  jurisdiction 
of  courts  of  tbe  United  States  has  not  been  adverted  to.  This  peculiar  and 
limited  jurisdiction  has  made  it  necessary,  in  these  courts,  to  adopt  different 
rules  and  principles  of  pleading,  so  far  as  jurisdiction  is  concerned,  from  those 
which  re;culaie  courts  of  common  law  in  England,  and  in  tbe  different  states  of 
tbe  Union  which  have  adoptid  tbe  common-iaw  rules. 

In  the.se  last-mentioned  Courts,  wb' ic  their  character  and  rank  are  analagous  to 
that  of  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  ;  in  other  words,  wbere  tbey  are  what 
the  law  terms  courts  of  general  juri.-idiction;  they  are  presumed  to  have  jurisdiction 
unless  tbe  contrary  appear.'j.  No  averment  in  the  pleadings  of  tbo  i)laintiff  is  ne- 
cessai-y,  in  order  to  g.ve  jurisdiction.     If  the  defendant  objects  to  it,  be  must  plead 


16  THE  DRro  SCOTT  DECISION. 

it  specially,  and  nnlo8«  the  fact  on  which  he  relics  is  found  to  be  true  by  a  jury,  or 
adtnlttvd  to  bu  true  by  the  plaintiff,  the  jurisdiction  cannot  be  disputed  in  an  ap- 
ptll:ite  court. 

Now,  it  is  not  nccps^ary  to  inquire  whether  in  cnurts  of  that  d-Fcription  a  party 
who  pli'iids  over  ii  bar.  \vh  n  a  j)!'  a  to  llie  juii-diction  h  is  be  •n  rule!  a<;;iin~t  hitu, 
does  or  dO'  s  not  waive  his  ]ilea:  nor  whether  upon  a  jiulpincnt  in  his  favor  on  the 
pleas  in  bar,  and  a  writ  of  error  brou.ht  by  the  jdaintll.  the  qnestinn  upon  the 
plea  iu  abateim  nt  would  be  open  for  revision  in  the  iippeilate  <our:.  C  ise-<  that 
may  h;ive  been  decided  in  such  conns,  or  ruh  s  that  may  have  been  laid  down  by 
common-law  pleaders,  can  have  no  i  iflnence  in  the  decision  in  this  court,  llecuuse, 
under  the  Con.stiiution  and  laws  nf  the  United  Stut<'p,  the  niles  wh  ch  poveru  the 
pleadings  in  it>  courts,  in  questions  of  jurisdiction,  stand  on  different  prineiple.^  and 
are  regulated  by  different  laws. 

Thi-:  diHeience  arises,  as  we  have  .'aid,  from  the  peculiar  character  of  the  Gov- 
eniment  of  the  United  State-^.  For  alihough  it  is  sovereign  and  ^np!•eme  in  it^ 
appropriate  sphere  of  action,  yet  it  (loe<  not  posse-s  all  the  powers  which  usually 
belong  to  the  sovereignty  of  a  nation.  Certain  specified  powers,  enumerated  in 
the  Coiistitut'ou.  have  been  conferred  upon  it;  and  mither  the  legislative,  execu- 
tive, uor  judicial  depa'tments  of  ihe  Government  can  lawfully  exercise  any  author- 
ity beyond  the  limits  markel  out  by  t!ie  Constitution.  And  in  regulating  the 
judicial  department,  the  ca^i-s  in  which  the  courts  of  tlie  United  .Sta'es  shall  hive 
jurisdiction  are  particularly  and  specifically  eiumerated  and  defined;  and  they  are 
not  authorized  to  tike  ci  guizance  of  any  cape  which  does  not  come  within  the  des- 
cription therein  specilied.  Hence,  wh'-u  a  plaintiff  sues  iu  a  court  of  the  United 
States,  it  is  nece-saiy  that  he  should  show,  in  his  p'eading■^,  that  th-  suit  he  biiusis 
is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  and  that  he  is  entitled  to  sue  there.  And  if 
Le  omits  to  do  this,  and  should,  by  any  oversight  of  the  Circuit  C  'urt,  obtain  a 
judgment  in  his  favor,  the  jmlgment  would  be  rever.'^ed  in  th(!  appellate  court  for 
want  ol  juri-dictiou  in  the  court  helow.  The  jurisdiction  would  not  be  presumed, 
as  in  the  case  of  a  common-law  English  or  State  court,  unltss  the  contrary  appeared. 
But  the  record,  when  it  comes  before  the  appdlate  court,  must  t^how,  attirmuivdy, 
that  the  inferior  court  had  autlioriiy,  under  t!ie  Constitution,  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine the  case.  And  if  the  plaint'ff  claims  a  right  to  sue  in  a  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States,  under  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  gives  jurisdiction  in 
controversies  b 'tween  citizens  of  d'fferent  States,  he  must  disti.ictly  aver  in  hia 
pleadings  that  th-y  are  citiz'us  of  diffr-uit  Slates;  and  he  cannot  maintain  his  suit 
without  showing  that  fact  in  the  pleadings. 

This  point  was  decided  in  the  case  of  IJingham  v.  Cabot,  (in  3  Pall..  382).  and 
ever  pince  adhered  to  by  the  court.  And  iu  Jackson  v.  Ashton  ,8  Pet..  148),  it 
was  held  that  the  objection  to  which  it  wa-;  opcu  could  not  be  waived  hy  the  oppo- 
site party,  because  consent  of  parties  could  not  give  jurisdiction. 

It  is  ne 'dless  to  accumulate  cases  on  this  ^ul'j  ct.  Tlio-e  already  referred  to,  and 
the  cases  ofCapronw.  Van  Noorden,  (in  2  Cr ,  126),  and  Moutalet  v.  MuiTiy.  (i 
Cr.,  46),  are  sufhcient  to  show  the  rule  of  which  we  have  spoken.  The  cii.«e  of  Cap- 
ron  V.  Van  Noorden  strikingly  illutrates  the  dilference  between  a  common-law  court 
and  a  court  of  the  United  States. 

If,  however,  the  fiu;t  of  citiz-nship  is  averred  in  the  declaration,  and  the  defen- 
dant does  not  deny  it.  and  put  it  in  issue  by  plea  in  abatement,  he  cannot  offer 
evidence  at  the  trial  to  disprove  it,  and  consequently  cmnot  avail  himself  of  the 
objection  in  the  ajjp^  Hale  court,  uiiles-^  the  delect  should  he  apparent  in  some  other 
part  of  the  record.  For  if  there  is  no  plea  in  ahatem'ut.  and  the  want  of  jurL-^dic- 
tion  does  n  )t  appear  in  any  other  [)artof  the  tra  i-cripl  lirou^dit  up  by  the  writ  of  er- 
ror, the  undisi)uied  avcrmentof  c  liz'n>hip  in  the  declaration  must  be  taken  iu  this 
court  to  he  true.  In  this  case,  the  citiz  iiship  is  averred,  but  if  i^^  denied  by  the  de- 
fendant in  th  '  manner  r  quired  by  the  rules  of  pie  idin,',  and  the  fact  upon  wh  ch 
the  denial  is  ba.s  d  is  admitted  Ity  the  dennirrer.  And.  if  the  plea  and  demurrer, 
and  judgment  of  the  court  lielow  upon  it,  :.re  before  us  upon  this  record,  the  ques- 
tion to  be  d'cidetl  is,  whether  the  f  icts  sta-e  1  in  the  pi  a  are  sufhcient  to  show  that 
the  plaintilf  is  not  (uitiiled  to  sue  as  a  ciiiz  n  in  a  court  of  tlie  United  States. 

We  think  they  are  before  us.  The  plea  in  ahatement  and  the  juilgm^nt  of  the 
court  upon  it,  are  a  part  of  the  jud  c  al  proc  -cdings  in  the  Circuit  Court,  and  are 
there  r -corded  a-  such  ;  and  a  wiit  of  error  always  brings  uji  to  the  superior  court 
the  whole  record  of  tiie  proc  'cdings  in  t!ie  court  below.  And  in  the  case  of  the 
Uuitnd  :ntutes  i>  Smith  (11  Wheat.,  172,)  thi&coui't  said,  thai  the  caiw  bciug  brought 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  17 

np  by  writ  of  error,  the  whole  record  was  undt^r  the  consider.itinn  of  this  court. 
And  this  bein?  the  case  in  the  present  instanc-i,  thi'  plea  in  ali-.iti'in 'nt  is  necessarily 
under  con^deratioii ;  and  it  become-^,  therefore,  our  dutv  to  deciilf  whether  th"  facts 
stated  in  the  plea  are  or  are  not  snflicient  to  show  that  the  plaiitiQis  not  entitled  to 
bue  as  a  citizen  in  a  court  of  t'.ie  United  States. 

This  i>  crtainly  a  very  serious  qne-tion,  and  one  tliat  now  for  the  first  lime  has 
been  brun<,'ht  for  decision  before  this  court.  But  it  is  lironght  here  by  those  who 
have  a  right  to  bring  it,  and  it  is  nur  duty  to  meet  it  and  de.ide  it. 

The  question  is  simply  this  :  Can  a  negro  whose  ancestors  were  imported  into 
this  country,  and  sold  as  slave.^,  become  a  member  of  (he  pol  tical  community  for- 
I  med  and  brought  into  existence  by  the  Coiisiiiution  of  tlie  United  States,  and  as 
such  become  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  piivile,i,'es  and  immnnitii  s  gnaranti  d  to 
the  citizen?  One  of  which  rights  is  the  privilege  of  suing  in  a  court  of  the  United 
States  in  the  cases  specilied  in  the  Constitution. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  the  plea  applies  to  that  class  of  person?  only  whose  an- 
cestors were  negroes  of  the  African  race,  and  imported  into  this  country,  and  sold 
and  held  as  slaves.  The  only  matter  in  issue  before  the  court,  therefore,  is,  wht'ther 
the  descendants  of  such  slaves,  when  they  shall  be  emancipati  d,  or  who  are  bora 
of  parenis  who  had  become  free  before  their  birh,  are  citizens  (if  a  State,  in  the 
sense  in  which  th  •  word  citizen  is  nsedjn  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  And 
this  being  the  only  matter  in  dispute  on  the  pleadings,  the  court  must  be  under- 
stood as  speakingin  this  opinion  of  that  class  only,  that  is,  of  those  p  rsons  who  are 
the  descendants  of  Africans  who  were  imported  into  this. country,  and  sdd  as  slaves. 
"  The  situation  of  this  population  was  altogethT  unlike  that  of  th^  Indian  race. 
The  latter,  it  is  true,  formed  uo  part  of  the  colonial  communities,  and  never  amal- 
gamated with  ihem  in  social  connections  or  in  government.  But  although  they 
were  uncivilized,  they  were  yet  a  free  ami  independent  p..ople.  a  socia'e:!  together 
in  nations  or  tribes,  and  gov(rned  by  their  own  laws.  Many  of  these  political  com- 
munities were  situated  in  territories  to  which  the  wiiite  race  claimed  the  ultimate 
right  of  dominion.  But  that  claim  was  acknowledged  to  be  snlject  to  the  right  of 
the  Indians  to  occupy  it  as  long  as  they  thought  proper,  and  neitlier  the  English  nor 
colonial  Governments  claimed  or  exercised  any  dominion  over  the  tribe  or  na- 
tion by  whom  it  was  occupied,  nor  claimed  the  right  to  the  possession  of  the  terri- 
tory, until  the  tribe  or  nation  consented  to  cede  it.  These  Indian  Governments  were 
regarded  and  treated  as  foreign  Governments,  as  much  so  as  if  an  oce.in  liad  separa- 
ted the  red  man  from  the  white  ;  and  their  freedom  has  constantly  been  acknowled- 
ged, from  the  time  of  the  first  emigration  to  the  English  colonies  to  the  present  day, 
by  the  different  Governments  which  succeeded  each  other.  Treaties  have  beeen  ne- 
gotiated with  them,  and  their  alliance  sought  for  in  war  ;  and  the  people  who  com- 
pose these  Indian  political  communities  have  always  been  treated  as  foreigners  not 
living  under  our  Government.  It  is  true  that  the  course  of  events  has  brought  the 
Indian  tribes  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  under  subjection  to  the  white 
race ;  and  it  has  been  found  necessary,  for  their  sake  as  well  as  our  own,  to  regard 
them  as  in  a  state  of  pupilage,  and  to  legislate  to  a  certain  extent  over  them  and 
the  territory  they  occupy.  But  they  may,  without  doubt,  like  the  subjects  of  any 
other  fi'reign  Government,  be  natnraliz'^d  by  the  authority  of  Congress,  and  become 
citizens  of  a  State,  and  of  the  United  States  ;  and  if  an  individual  should  leave 
his  nation  or  tribe,  and  take  up  his  abode  among  the  white  poi)ulation,  ho  would 
be  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  which  would  belong  to  an  emigrant  from 
any  other  foreign  people. 

\Ve  proceed  to  examine  the  case  as  presented  by  the  pleadings. 

The  words  •'  people  of  theUnited  States"  and  •'  citizens"  are  synonymous  terms, 
and  mean  th'i  same  thing.  They  both  de-scribe  the  political  body  who,  according  to 
our  republican  institutions,  form  the  sovereignty,  and  who  hold  the  pow(.T  and  con- 
duct the  Governraent*through  their  representatives.  They  are  what  we  familiarly 
call  the  "sovereign  people,"  and  every  citizen  is  one  of  this  peo])lft  and  a  constitu- 
ent member  of  this  sovere-igiity.  The  question  before  us  is,  wh  tlnr  the  class  of 
persons  described  in  the  plea  in  abitemi-nt  compose  a  portion  of  this  p'()])le,  and  are 
constituent  members  of  this  sovereignty?  We  think  they  are  not,  and  that  they  are 
not  included,  and  were  not  intended  to  be  included,  under  the  word  "citz-ns"  in 
the  Constitution,  and  can  therefore  claim  none  of  the  rights  and  privileges  which 
that  instrument  provids  for  and  secures  to  citizens  of  the  United  States.  On  the 
contrary,  they  were  at  that  time  considered  as  a  subordinate  and  inferior  class  of 
beings,  who  had  been  subjugated  by  the  dominant  raje,  and,  whether  eiuancip.ited 


18  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

or  not,  j'^t  remained  Piibjpct  to  their  authority,  and  had  no  rights  or  privileges  bat 
Burh  as  Uiosc  who  li'ld  the  power  and  the  gi)VL'rnnie;)t  miih'  choo,=e  to  jiraat  them. 

It  is  not  the  province  of  the  court  lo  decide  upon  the  justice  or  inju-ticf,  the  pen 
licy  or  impolicy,  of  tiie-c  laws.  The  decision  of  that  qiie-tion  b  ■h'nged  ti>  ihe 
political  or  law-making  powf-r;  to  thosi-who  fonntd  ih-  povc  regni  y  and  fiam<d  the 
Con-iitution.  The  duty  of  the  court  is,  to  interpret  the  in-tninvnt  they  have 
fraun-d,  witli  the  best  lights  we  can  obtuin  on  the  sulject.and  to  administer  it  a.'?  we 
find  it.  according  to  its  true  intent  and  meaning  wiien  it  was  adoptt-fl. 

In  discusi'iiig  tliis  qui'Stion,  we  must  not  cmfunnd  Iherigh's  ot  cit  Z'n=hip  whic'i  a 
Slatt'  may  confer  witnin  its  own  limit.«,  and  the  rights  of  citiz'-iiship  as  a  in  mh  r  of 
the  Union.  It  does  not  by  any  means  follow,  l)(Cin«e  he  has  all  the  right*  and 
privileges  of  a  citiz-n  olaSiaie.  that  he  mn-t  be  a  citizen  of  the  Uniti-d  State  s.  He 
m  ly  have  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  citizen  of  a  State,  and  yi-t  not  be  in- 
titled  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  citizen  in  any  other  Sate.  For.  previous  to  the 
adoption  of  tlie  dmstitution  of  the  United  States,  every  State  had  t!ie  undouht-d 
right  to  confer  on  whomsoever  it  pleased  the  character  of  citizen,  a'  d  to  endow  him 
with  all  it*  rights.  But  this  character  of  conrs-  was  confined  to  Ih'boundari'S  ol  the 
State,  and  gave  him  lo  rights  or  privileges  in  other  States  beyond  those  S'Cured  to  him 
by  the  laws  of  nations  and  the  comity  of  States.  Nor  have  the  siverai  States  surren- 
dered the  power  ot  conferring  these  rights  and  privileges  by  adopting  tlie  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.  E.ich  State  may  still  confer  them  upon  an  ali-n,  or  any 
one  it  thiaks  proper,  or  upon  any  class  or  description  of  persons;  yet  he  would  not 
be  a  citizen  in  the  sense  in  which  that  word  is  used  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  nor  entitled  to  sue  as  s-uch  in  one  of  its  courts,  n^r  to  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  a  citizen  in  the  other  State.*.  The  ri;;hts  which  he  would  acquire 
would  be  restricted  to  the  State  which  gave  them.  The  Constitu'iion  has  conferred 
on  Congress  the  right  to  establish  an  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  this  right 
is  evidently  exclusive,  and  has  always  been  held  by  this  court  to  be  so.  Conse- 
quently, no  State,  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  can  by  naturalizing  an 
alien  invest  him  with  the  rights  and  privlh  gcs  secured  to  a  citizen  of  a  State  under 
the  Federal  Government  although,  so  far  as  the  State  alone  was  concerned,  he 
would  undoubtedly  be  eutitlt  d  to  the  rijihts  of  acitiz'n,  and  clothed  with  all  the 
rights  and  immunities  which  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State  attached  to  that 
character. 

It  is  very  clear,  therefore,  that  no  State  can,  by  any  act  or  law  of  its  own,  pns.«ed 
since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  introduce  a  new  member  into  the  pijitcal 
community  created  by  tlie  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  cannot  make  him 
a  member  of  this  community  by  making  him  a  member  of  its  own.  And  for  the 
eame  rea.>-on  it  cannot  iiitr.  duce  any  person  or  d'  scription  of  persons,  who  were  not 
intended  to  be  embraced  in  this  new  political  family,  which  the  Constitution  brought 
into  existence,  bvit  were  intendid  to  be  excluded  Irom  it. 

The  question  then  arises,  whether  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  in  relation 
to  the  personal  rights  and  privileges  to  which  the  citizen  of  a  State  shonfll  be  en- 
titled, embraced  the  negro  African  r.ace,  at  that  time  in  this  country,  or  who  might 
afterwards  be  imported,  who  had  then  or  .should  afterwards  lie  mule  fiee  in  any 
State;  and  to  put  it  in  the  power  of  a  single  State  to  make  him  a  citiz-n  of  the 
United  Slates,  and  endue  him  with  the  full  rights  of  citizenship  in  every  other 
State  without  their  consent?  Does  the  C(mstitution  of  the  United  States  act  upon 
him  whenever  he  shall  be  made  free  undtr  the  laws  of  a  State,  and  raised  there  to 
the  rank  ol  a  citizen,  and  immediately  clothe  him  with  all  the  privileges  of  a  citi- 
een  in  every  other  State,  and  in  its  own  courts? 

The  court  think  Ihe  affirmative  of  these  prop  )sitions  cannot  be  maintained.  And 
if  ii  cannot,  the  plaint  tf  in  error  could  not  bu  a  citizen  of  the  State  of  Mis.souri, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and,  consequently,  was 
not  entitled  to  sue  in  its  courts.  . 

It  is  true,  every  person,  and  every  class  and  description  of  persons,  who  wore  at 
the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  recogaizi  d  as  citizens  in  the  .several 
States,  becum-  also  citizens  of  this  in-w  political  body;  but  none  other;  it  was  for- 
mi.'d  by  them,  and  for  them  and  their  posterity,  but  for  no  one  else.  And  the  per- 
sonal lights  and  privileges  guaranti'd  to  citizens  of  this  new  sovereignty  were 
intended  to  embrace  those  only  who  were  then  membirs  of  the  several  State  com- 
munities, or  who  should  aft<  rwards  by  birthrglit  or  otherwis  •  become  memi  ers, 
according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and  the  principles  on  which  it  was 
founded.    It  was  the  union  of  those  who  were  at  that  time  members  of  distinct  and 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  18 

separate  political  communities  into  one  polit'cal  fiinily,  whose  power,  for  cortaia 
spec; tied  purposes,  was  to  extend  over  tiie  whole  tenitory  of  the  Uiiitd  States. 
And  it  gave  to  each  citizen  rights  and  privileges  outside  of  his  State  which  he  did 
not  befoi e  possess,  and  placid  hini  in  every  other  Suite  upon  a  perlect  eqiuility 
with  its  own  citzens  as  to  rights  of  person  and  rights  of  property;  it  made  him  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States. 

It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  determine  who  were  citizens  of  the  several 
States  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted.  And  in  order  to  do  tiiis.  we  must  recur 
to  tiie  governments  and  instituiions  of  the  thiriejn  colonies,  when  they  separated 
from  Great  Britain  and  formed  new  suvereigniies,  and  took  their  pLice.s  in  ihu  fam- 
ily of  iiidependent  nations.  We  must  enquire  wh^j,  at  that  time,  were  recognized 
as  the  people  or  citizens  of  a  State,  wliose  riglits  and  liberties  had  been  outragi'd 
by  the  E.iglisli  Government ;  and  who  decland  tin  ir  indep  ■nibnicc,  and  assumed  the 
powers  of  Government  to  defend  their  rights  by  lorce  of  arms. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  court,  the  legislation  and  h. stories  of  tlic  times,  and  tlie  lan- 
guaj;e  used  in  the  Declaraiion  of  Independerice,  ^how,  that  i.eith.  r  the  class  of  per- 
sons'^ who  had  been  impor;ed  as  slaves,  nor  their  de  cendants,  whether  they  had  be- 
come free  or  not,  were  ihc.i  acknowledged  as  a  part  of  the  people,  nor  iuteuded  to 
be  iuclnd  d  in  the  general  words  used  in  that  m. morable  instrument. 

It  is  ditacult  at  ihi<  d  ly  to  realiz3  the  state  of  public  opinion  in  relation  to  that 
unfortun.ite  race,  which  prevailed  in  the  civilized  and  eulighiened  portions  of  the 
world  at  th'  time  of  the  Decl.iration  of  Indeptnideace,  and  when  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  Wiis  Iramed  and  adopted.  But  the  pub  ic  history  of  every 
European  nation  displays  it  in  a  manner  too  plain  to  be  mistaken. 

They  had  for  more  than  a  century  before  been  regarded  as  beings  of  an  inferior  order, 
and  altogether  unfit  to  a'^sociaie  with  the  white  race,  either  in  social  or  political  re- 
lations ;  and  so  fir  inferior,  th.it  they  had  no  rights  which  the  white  man  was  bound 
to  respect ;  and  that  the  negro  might  justly  and  lawfully  be  reduced  to  slavery  for  his 
benefit.  lie  was  bought  and  sold,  and  treated  as  an  ordinary  article  of  mei  chaiidise 
and  tralTic,  whenever  a  prollt  eould  bemadeby  it.  This  opinion  was  at  that  time  li,\ed 
and  universal  in  the  civilized  portion  of  the  white  race.  It  was  regarded  as  an 
axiom  in  morals  as  well  as  m  politics,  which  no  O'le  thonpht  of  disputing,  or  snp- 
posed  to  be  open  to  d  spate  ;  and  men  in  every  grade  and  po-ition  iu  soceiy  ilaily 
and  habitually  acted  upon  it  in  their  private  pur-uits,  as  well  as  in  mailers  of  pub- 
lic concern,  without  doubting  for  a  moment  the  correctness  of  this  opinion. 

And  in  no  uatioa  was  this  opinion  nore  firmly  fixed  or  more  uniformly  acted  up- 
on than  by  the  English  Government  and  English  people.  They  not  only  seized 
them  0:1  tlie  coast  of  Afiica.  and  sold  them  or  held  them  in  slavery  for  their  own 
u-se  ;  but  they  took  them  as  ordinary  articles  of  m^ichandise  to  every  country 
where  th-y  could  make  a  profit  on  them,  and  were  far  more  extensively  engaged 
iu  this  commerc«,  than  any  other  nation  in  the  world. 

The  opinion  thus  entertained  and  act./d  upon  in  England  was  naturally  impres- 
sed upon  the  colonies  they  founded  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  And,  accordingly, 
a  negro  of  the  African  race  was  regarded  by  them  as  an  article  of  proi)erty,  and 
held,  and  bought  and  sold  as  s;ich,  iu  every  oneot  the  thirteen  colonies  wnich  nnited 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  ;.fterwards  formed  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  Slates.  The  tlavis  were  more  or  less  numerous  iu  the  dltfu-ent  colonics,  as 
slave  labor  was  lound  more  or  less  profitable.  But  no  one  seems  to  have  doubted 
the  correc  n  ss  of  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  time. 

The  legislation  of  the  dillereut  colonies  furnishes  positive  and  indi-putable  proof 
of  tlii~  fact. 

It  would  be  tedious,  in  this  opinion,  to  enumerate  the  various  laws  they  pa.s«cd 
upon  ihis  suiyeet.  It  will  be  t-udicient,  as  a  sample  of  the  legi-laiion  which  then 
generally  prtvaih  d  throughout  the  British  colonies,  to  give  the  laws  of  two  of 
them  ;  one  being  still  a  large  slaveholJing  State,  and  the  other  the  first  State  in 
which  sluv  ry  ceased  to  exist. 

The  provi.ice  of  Maryland,  in  1717,  (ch.  13,  s.  5,)  passed  a  law  declaring  ''that 
if  any  Ire;  negro  or  mn'laito  intermarry  with  any  while  woman,  or  if  any  while 
man  shall  inier.narry  with  any  negro  or  mulatto  woman,  such  negro  or  mnlitto 
shall  b  come  a  slave  during  lile,  excepting  mulaltoe- born  of  white  women,  who, 
for  such  intermarriage,  sliall  only  become  s.  rvants  for  seven  years,  to  be  disposed 
of  as  the  jutices  of  the  coun:y  court,  where  such  marriage  so  happens  shall  think 
fit;  to  be  applied  bv  them  towards  the  support  of  a  public  school  wthin  the  and 
county.    And  any  "white  man  or  white  woman  who  shall  iuiermarry  asafore.-aid, 


20  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

with  any  negro  or  miHatto,  such  white  man  or  white  woman  shall  become  servants 
during  the  term  of  seven  years,  and  shall  be  disposed  of  by  the  justices  as  alorc 
BaiiJ.  ami  be  applied  to  tho  uses  aforcpaid." 

The  iitlier  colonial  law  to  which  we  refer  was  passed  by  Massachusetts  in  1705, 
(chap,  fi.)  It  is  entilli'd  "  An  act  for  the  better  preventing  of  a  spurious  and  m'X- 
cd  is.-ui'."  lie;  and  it  provides,  that  "  if  any  negro  or  mulatto  shall  pre.'^ume  to  smite 
or  strike  any  p  -rson  of  the  Engli>h  or  othir  Christian  nation,  such  negro  or  mulatto 
sh  ill  1)6  severely  whipped,  at  the  di.-cretion  of  the  justices  before  whom  the  otfender 
shall  be  convicted." 

And  "tnat  none  of  her  Majesty's  English  or  Scottish  snbji'cts,  nor  of  any  other 
Christian  nation,  within  this  province,  shall  contract  matrimony  with  any  negro  or 
mulatto  ;  nor  shall  any  person,  duly  autliorised  to  solemnize  m  irriage,  presume  to 
join  any  such  in  m:\rriage,  on  pain  of  forfeiting  the  sum  of  fifty  pounds;  one 
moiety  thereof  to  her  Majesty,  for  and  towards  the  support  of  the  Government  with- 
in this  province,  and  the  other  moiety  to  him  or  them  that  shall  inform  and  sue  for 
the  same  in  any  of  her  Majesty's  courts  of  record  within  the  province,  by  bill,  plaint, 
or  information." 

We  give  both  of  these  laws  in  the  words  used  by  the  respective  legislative  bodies, 
because  the  language  in  which  they  are  framed,  as  well  as  the  provisions  contained 
in  tliem.show,  too  plainly  to  be  misunderstood,  the  degraded  condition  of  this  un- 
happy race.  They  were  still  in  force  when  the  Revolution  began,  and  are  a  faithful 
index  to  the  state  of  feeling  towards  the  class  of  persons  of  whom  they  speak,  and 
of  the  po-ition  they  occupied  throughout  the  thirteen  colonies,  in  the  eyes  and 
thoughts  of  the  men  who  framed  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  e.-tabli^hed 
the  Suite  Constitutions  and  Governments.  They  show  that  a  perpetual  and  impas- 
sable barrier  was  intended  to  be  erected  between  the  white  race  and  the  one  wtiich 
they  had  reduced  to  slavery,  and  governed  as  subjects  with  al)solute  aud  despotic 
power,  and  which  they  then  looked  upon  as  so  far  below  them  in  the  scale  of  created 
beings,  that  intermarriages  between  white  persons  and  negroes  or  mulattoes  were 
regarded  as  unnatural  and  immoral,  and  punished  as  crimes,  not  only  in  the  parties, 
but  in  the  person  who  joined  them  in  marriage.  And  no  distinction  in  this  respect 
was  made  between  the  free  negro  or  mulatto  and  the  slave,  but  this  stigma,  of  the 
deepest  degradation,  was  fixed  upon  the  whole  race. 

We  refer  to  these  historical  facts  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  fixed  opinions 
concernirg  that  race,  upon  which  the  statesmen  of  that  day  spoke  and  acted.  It 
is  necessary  to  do  this,  in  order  to  determine  whether  the  general  term^  u-ed  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  to  the  rights  of  man  and  the  rights  of  the 
people,  was  intended  to  include  them,  or  to  give  to  them  or  their  posterity  the  ben- 
efit of  any  of  its  provisions. 

The  language  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  equally  conclusive  : 

It  begins  b.y  declaring  "  liiat  when  in  the  course  of  human  events  it  becomes  neces- 
sary for  one  jieople  to  dissolve  the  political  bands  which  have  connected  them  with 
another,  and  to  as-ume  among  tlie  powers  of  the  earih  the  sopara'e  and  equal 
station  to  which  tlie  laws  of  nature  and  nature's  God  entitle  them,  a  decent  respect 
for  the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they  should  declare  the  causes  which  im- 
pel them  to  the  separation." 

It  then  proceeds  to  say  :  "  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident :_  that  all  men 
arc  created  equal  ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable 
rights  ;  tliat  among  them  is  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  ;  that  to  fo- 
cure  these  rights,  Governments  are  instituted,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  llie  governed." 

Tlie  gi'neial  words  above  quoted  would  seem  to  embrace  the  whole  human  fam- 
ily, and  if  they  were  used  in  a  similar  instrnment  at  this  day  would  be  so  under- 
stood. But  it  is  too  clear  for  dispute,  tiiat  the  enslaved  African  race  were  not 
intended  to  be  included,  and  formed  no  part  of  the  people  who  framed  and  adopted 
this  declarat  on  ;  for  if  the  language,  as  understood  in  that  day.  would  embrace 
them,  the  conduct  of  the  distinguished  men  who  franied  iho  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence would  liave  been  utterly  aud  flagrantly  ineonssieni  with  the  principles 
they  a.«^8erted  ;  and  instead  of  the  sympathy  of  mankind,  to  which  they  so  confi- 
dently appealed,  they  would  have  deserved  and  received  universal  rebuke  aud 
rejtrobatioii. 

Yet  the  men  who  framed  this  declaration  were  great  men — high  in  literary  ac- 
quirements-high in  their  sense  of  honor,  and  incapable  of  asserting  principles 
iuoousisleut  with  those  on  which  they  wore  acting.     They  perfectly  understood  the 


THE  DEED  SCOTT  DECISION.  21 

meaning  of  the  language  they  used,  and  bow  it  would  be  understood  by  others  5 
and  they  knew  that  it  would  not  in  any  part  of  the  civilized  world  be  supposed  to 
embrac!  the  negro  race,  which  by  coininou  coiisfot,  had  bein  excluded  from  civil- 
ized Governments  and  the  family  of  nations,  and  do'imed  10  slavery.  They  spoke 
and  acted  according  to  the  ihea  established  doctrines  and  pr.nciple^^.  and  in  the 
ordinary  language  of  the  diy,  and  no  one  minmilerstood  them.  The  unhappy  black 
race  were  separated  from  the  white  by  indelible  marks,  and  laws  long  before  estab- 
lished, and  werent'ver  thony,ht  of  or  spoken  of  except  as  properly,  and  when  the 
claims  of  the  owner  or  the  profit  of  the  trader  were  suppo-ed  to  need  protection. 

This  state  of  public  opinion  had  undergone  no  change  when  the  Constituliou  waa 
adopted,  as  is  equally  evident  from  its  provisions  and  language. 

The  brief  preamble  sets  forth  by  whom  it  was  formed,  for  what  purposes,  and  for 
whose  benefit  and  protection.  It  declares  that  it  is  formed  l.y  the  people  of  the 
United  States  ;  that  is  to  say,  by  those  who  were  members  of  the  difi'erent  political 
communities  in  the  several  States  ;  and  its  great  object  is  declared  to  be  to  S'.cure 
the  blessings  of  liberty  to  themselves  and  their  posterity.  It  speaks  in  general 
terms  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  of  citizens  of  the  sevt  ral  States,  when 
it  is  providiusi  for  the  exercise  of  the  powers  granted  or  the  privileges  secnredto 
the  citizen.  It  does  not  define  what  description  of  persons  are  intended  to  be  in- 
cluded under  the.se  terms,  or  who  shall  be  regarded  as  a  citizen  and  one  of  the 
people.  It  uses  them  as  terms  so  well  understood,  that  no  further  description  or 
definition  was  necessary. 

But  there  are  two  clauses  in  the  Constitution  which  point  directly  and  specifically 
to  the  negro  race  as  a  separate  class  of  persons,  and  show  clearly  that  they  were  not 
regarded  as  a  portion  of  the  p.^ople  or  citizens  of  the  Government  then  formed. 

One  of  these  clauses  reserves  to  each  of  the  thirteen  States  the  right  to  import 
slaves  until  the  year  1808,  if  it  thinks  proper.  And  the  importation  which  it  thus 
sanctions  was  uuqu-stlonsbly  of  persons  of  the  race  of  which  we  are  speaking,  as 
the  traffic  in  slaves  in  ihe  United  States  had  always  been  confined  to  them.  And 
by  the  other  provision  the  States  pledge  them-elves  to  each  other  to  maintain  the 
right  of  property  of  the  master,  by  delivering  up  to  him  any  slave  who  may  have 
escaped  from  h;s  service,  and  be  found  within  their  resp  ctive  territories.  By  the 
first  above-mentioned  clause,  therefore,  the  right  to  purchase  and  hold  this  property 
is  directly  saiictioued  and  authorized  lor  twenty  years  by  the  people  who  framed 
the  Constitution.  And  by  the  second,  they  pledge  themselves  to  maintain  and  up- 
hold the  right  of  the  master  in  the  manner  specified,  as  long  as  the  G oveniment 
they  then  lonned  should  endure.  And  these  two  provisions  show,  conclusively, 
that  neither  the  description  of  persons  therein  referred  to.  uor  their  descendants, 
were  embraced  in  any  of  the  other  provisions  of  the  Constitution  ;  for  certainly  these 
two  clauses  were  uui  intended  to  confer  on  them  or  their  posterity  the  blessings  of 
liberty,  or  any  of  the  personal  rights  so  carefully  providtd  for  the  citizen. 

No  one  of  that  race  had  ever  mi.^ruted  to  the  United  Stales  voluntarily  ;  all  of 
them  had  been  brought  here  as  articles  of  merchandise.  The  number  that  had  beeu 
emmcipated  at  that  time  were  but  few  in  comp  u-i-on  with  those  held  in  slavery  ; 
and  th-y  were  identified  in  the  public  mind  with  the  race  to  which  they  belong.-d, 
and  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  slave  population  rather  than  the  free.  It  is  obvious 
that  they  were  not  even  in  the  minds  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  when  they 
were  conferring  sp  'cial  rights  and  privileges  upou  the  citizjns  of  a  state  in  every 
other  part  of  the  Union. 

Inde'^d.  when  we  look  to  the  condition  of  this  race  in  the  several  Stat'  s  at  the 
time,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  these  rights  and  privileges  were  intended  to  be 
extended  to  them. 

It  is  very  true,  that  in  that  poition  of  the  Union  where  the  labor  of  the  negro 
race  was  found  to  b3uns:iited  to  the  climate  and  unprofitable  to  the  master,  butf.w 
slaves  were  h  Id  at  the  time  of  the  Ueclaralion  of  Inde-pendence ;  and  when  the 
Coustitiitioii  was  adopred.  it  had  entirely  worn  out  in  one  of  them,  and  measures  had 
been  taken  for  its  graduil  aboliiion  in  several  others.  But  this  change  had  not 
beeu  produced  by  any  change  of  opinion  in  relation  to  this  race  ;  bnt  Ijecanse  it 
was  discovered,  from  --xp  rieuje.  that  sl.ive  labor  wa^^  unsuiie  1  to  the  cliimte  and 
productions  of  these  States:  for  som;  of  the  States,  where  it  had  ceas'd  or  nearly 
cea.sed  to  exist,  were  actively  engaged  in  th .'  slave  trade,  procuring  cai  goes  on  the 
coast  of  .\fri:a.  anl  transporting  them  for  sale  to  those  parts  of  the  Union  where 
their  labor  was  fou;id  to  be  proiitable,  and  suited  to  the  climate  and  productions. 
A.ad  this  traiij  Was  opj.ily  carnei  on,  aud  fjriuaes  accumulated  by  it,  without  re- 


22  THE  URED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

proach  fi-om  the  p^opln  of  the  Stati'S  where  they  rosifled.  And  it  can  hanlly  be 
suppo'i'd  that,  in  th<!  States  wh-Tc  it  wu-  then  cmmt'-iiaiiced  in  it-;  wor-t  form— that 
is,  iu  ih.'  Feiziire  and  transport  ition— the  people  could  have  rigarded  those  who 
were  •■mancipal'd  ivs  entitled  to  equal  r  jrhis  with  tlicm-elv.  s. 

And  we  miy  heea^ain  refer,  in  support  of  ttiis  proposition,  to  the  plain  and 
unequivocal  lansua^re  of  the  laws  of  the  s*'veral  State-,  some  pa-sed  after  the  Dec- 
larat  on  of  Indi  p  ■iid'-nce  and  h-fore  the  Consliiutiou  was  adopted,  and  some  since 
the  G')vernm<Mit  wont  into  operation. 

We  need  not  refer,  on  this  point,  partictil  irly  to  the  laws  of  the  present  slave- 
holding  .^tates.  The-r  statute  book^  are  full  of  provision.*  in  relation  to  tliis  class, 
in  the  same  spirit  with  the  Marylan<l  law  which  we  have  l.efore  qnot'd.  They 
have  continued  to  treat  them  as  an  inferior  cla-s.  and  to  snliject  them  to  strict  po- 
lice regulations,  drawing  a  broad  line  of  distinction  between  the  citizen  and  the 
slave  riices,  and  leg  slaiing  in  relation  to  th  m  upon  the  same  princ'ple  which  pre- 
vailed at  tiie  lime  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  As  relates  to  these  .^tafes, 
it  is  too  plain  for  arsnraent,  that  they  hav-  never  been  regarded  as  a  part  of  the 
people  or  citizens  of  the  State,  nor  supposed  to  possess  any  poi.tical  riglits  which 
/  the  dominant  race  might  not  withhold  or  -(rant  at  their  pi-  asure.  And  as  h  ng  ago 
I  as  1822,  the  Court  ot  Appeals  of  Kentucky  decided  that  free  negroes  and  mulaitoes 
were  not  citizens  wiihin  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  ot  the  United  States  ;  and 
the  correctness  of  this  decision  is  recognized,  and  the  same  doctrine  aflarmed,  IQ 
1  Meigs's  Tenn.  Reports,  331. 

And  if  we  turn  to  the  legislation  of  the  States  where  slavery  had  worn  out,  01 
measures  taken  for  its  speedy  abolition,  we  shall  find  the  same  opinions  and  princi- 
ples equally  fixed  and  equally  acted  upon.  o     , .  v 

Thus  Massaclms'  tts,  in  1786,  parsed  a  law  similar  to  the  colonial  one  of  whicb 
we  have  spoken.  The  law  of  1786.  like  the  law  of  170.5,  rorl)ids  the  marriage  of 
anv  white  person  with  any  negro,  Indian,  or  mulatto,  and  infliets  a  penalty  of  fitly 
pounds  upon  any  one  who  shall  join  them  in  marriage;  and  declares  all  such 
marriat'es  absolutely  null  and  void,  and  d  grades  thus  the  unhappy  issue  of  the 
marriage  by  fixin;;  upon  it  the  stain  of  bastaidy.  And  this  mark  of  d'gradatiun 
was  renewed  and  again  impressed  upon  the  race,  in  the  careful  and  deliberate  prep- 
aration of  their  revised  code  puhlished  in  1836.  Tiiis  code  forbids  any  person  from 
joining  in  marriage  any  white  person  with  any  Indian,  n.  gro,  or  mulatto,  aud  sub- 
jects the  party  who  shall  ottend  in  this  respect,  to  imprisonment,  not  exceedmg  six 
months  in  the  common  jail,  or  to  hard  labor,  and  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor 
miu-e  than  two  hundred  dollars  ;  and  like  the  law  of  1786,  it  declares  the  marriage 
to  be  absolutely  null  and  void.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  punishment  is  increased 
by  the  code  upon  the  person  who  shall  marry  them,  by  adding  imprisoumeut  to  a 

pecuniary  penalty.  .     ,     ,     .      ^     ,     .  ,  ,.•         <■  .u- 

So,  too  in  Connecticut.  We  refer  more  particular'y  to  the  legi-lation  of  this 
State,  because  it  was  not  only  among  the  first  to  put  an  end  to  slavery  within  its 
own  territory,  but  was  the  first  to  fix  a  mark  of  reprobation  upon  the  .\frican  slave 
trade.  The  law  last  mentioned  was  pis-ed  in  (Jctob  r.  17S8.  about  nine  monlhs  after 
th'-  State  had  ratified  and  adopted  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States; 
and  by  that  law  it  prohibited  its  own  citizens,  under  severe  ponalii'S,  from  enga- 
gin"  in  the  tradi',  ami  declared  all  policies  of  insurance  on  the  v«vsel  or  cargo  made 
in  the  State  to  be  null  and  void.  Dot  up  to  the  time  of  the  adoption  ol  the 
Constitution,  thi-re  is  nothing  in  ih"  Icirislaiion  of  the  State  indicating  any  change 
of  opinion  as  to  the  relative  rights  and  position  of  the  white  and  black  raci  s  in  this 
country,  or  indicating  that  it  meant  t  >  place  the  latter,  when  free,  upon  a  level  with 
iis  citizens.  And  certainly  nothing  which  would  have  led  the  slaveholdiiig  States 
to  suppose  that  Connecticut  designtMl  torlaim  for  them,  under  the  new  Consrtitution, 
the  iqual  rights  and  privileg'-s  and  rank  ot  citizens  in  every  other  State. 

The  first  step  taken  by  Conn.'ct'cut  upon  this  subject  was  as  early  as  1774,  when 
it  passed  nn  act  forbidding  the  further  importation  of  slaves  into  the  State.  But 
the  section  containing  the  prohibition  is  introduced  by  the  following  preamble  : 

"  .\ii(l  whereas  the  increase  of  slaves  iu  this  State  is  injurious  to  the  poor,  and 
inconveni 'nt." 

This  lecital  would  appear  to  have  been  carefully  introduced,  in  order  to  prevent 
any  misunderstanding  of  the  motive  which  induced  the  Legislature  to  pass  the  law, 
and  places  it  distinctly  upon  the  interest  and  conveidence  of  the  white  population — 
excluding  the  inlereuce  that  it  might  have  been  intended  in  any  degree  for  the 
benefit  of  the  other. 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION'.  23 

And  in  the  act  of  1784,  by  wh  ch  the  issue  of  slaves  I'orii  after  (he  timo  thoreiu 
mentioned,  were  to  be  tree  at  a  crrtain  ag»*,  the  secton  is  again  introduced  by  a 
preanildo  as-igning  a  f-imilur  motive  for  thr  act.     It  ii^  in  ilie-c  ware's  : 

"  Whereas  .'Oiind  policy  roriuire-;  thai  the  abidiiion  of  slavery  ^hould  be  effected 
as  soon  Its  may  be  c.  ns  sttnt  with  tlie  ri-ht-;  of  indiv  duals,  and  the  public  .'■ately 
and  welfare  '' — showing  that  the  right  of  prep;  rty  in  the  master  was  to  be  proticled, 
and  tliat  ih"  meamre  was  one  of  i)Oiicy,  and  to  prevent  the  injury  and  iuconve- 
n  ence,  to  ihe  whites,  of  a  skive  population  in  tlie  State. 

And  still  fnrtiier  pursuing  itsl>  gi-laiion,  we  (ind  that  in  the  same  statute  passed 
in  1774.  which  prohibit  d  the  further  importation  if  slavis  into  the  State,  there  is 
also  a  provision  by  which  any  negro.  Indian,  or  inuhitto  .-servant,  who  was  found 
wandering  out  of  tlie  town  or  placo  to  whicli  he  belonged,  without  a  written  pasa 
such  as  istiiiTein  described,  was  made  Table  to  be  seized  by  a  ly  one,  and  taken 
before  the  next  authority  t  >  be  examiutd  and  delivered  up  to  his  master — who  was 
required  to  pay  the  charge  which  had  accrued  ther.'by.  And  a  sub-eqnenl  section 
of  ilie  satne  liw  provMes,  that  if  any  frej  negro  shall  travel  without  such  pass, 
and  ^hall  be  stopped,  seiz  d.  or  taken  up,  he  shall  pay  all  charges  arising  thereby. 
And  this  law  was  in  full  operation  when  tlie  Constitution  of  tlie  United  tsiates  waa 
adopted,  and  was  not  repealed  till  1797.  So  that  up  to  that  time  free  negroes  and 
mul  ittoes  were  as,«ociatt'd  with  servants  and  slaves  in  the  police  regulations  estab- 
lished by  the  laws  of  the  State. 

And  agiiii,  in  IfciSS.  Coiuiecticut  pas=ed  another  law,  which  made  it  penal  to  set 
up/)r  establish  any  school  in  that  Stale  for  the  iustruction  of  persons  of  the  African 
race  not  inhabitants  of  the  Slate,  or  to  instruct  or  teach  in  any  such  school  or  in- 
stitiiiion.  or  board  or  harbor  for  that  purpose,  any  such  person,  without  the  previous 
conseiu  in  writing  of  the  civil  authority  of  the  town  in  which  such  school  or  insti- 
tution might  be. 

And  it  appears  by  (he  case  of  Crandall  v.  the  State,  reported  in  10  Conn.  Rep., 
340.  that  upon  an  iuforination  filed  agaiii.st  Prudence  Crandall  for  a  violation  of  this 
law.  one  of  the  points  raised  in  the  defence  was,  that  the  law  wa.s  a  violaiiou  of  the 
Co  i-titiition  of  the  United  States  ;  and  that  the  pjrsons  instructed,  a'though  of  the 
Airicin  race,  were  citiz  -ns  of  other  States,  and  therefore  entitled  to  the  rights  and 
privil  g  's  of  citiz  'lis  in  the  State  of  Connecticut.  But  Chief  Justice  Da<rget,  before 
whom  tiie  case  was  tried,  held,  that  persons  of  that  description  were  not  citizens  of 
a  State,  within  the  m-aning  of  the  word  citizen  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
Slates,  a  id  were  not  theretore  entitled  to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens 
iu  other  States. 

The  ca-e  was  carried  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Errors  of  the  State,  and  (he  ques- 
tion fully  argued  there.  But  the  case  weut  off  upou  another  point,  and  no  opinion 
was  I  xpressed  on  t'lis  question. 

We  have  made  this  particular  examination  into  the  legislative  and  judicial  action 
of  Connecticut,  because,  :ri)m  the  early  hostility  it  displayed  to  the  slave  trnde  on 
the  C'^ast  ot  Africa,  we  m  ly  expect  to  find  the  laws  of  that  State  as  lenient  and 
favoral)le  to  the  subject  race  a^  those  of  any  other  State  in  the  Union;  and  if  we  find 
that  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  they  were  not  even  there  raised  to 
the  rank  of  ciiiz-ns,  but  were  still  held  and  treated  as  pmperly,  and  the  laws  rela- 
ting to  tlieai  passed  with  reference  altigether  to  the  interest  and  convenience  of  the 
wh:te  race,  we  shall  hardly  find  them  elevated  to  a  higher  rank  anywhere  else. 

A  brief  notice  of  the  laws  of  two  othLT  Stales,  and  we  .shall  pass  on  to  other 
con>ideratio:is. 

By  the  laws  of  New  Hampshire,  collected  and  finally  passed  in  ISl."),  no  one  was 
p-rmiit  d  to  1  e  enrolled  in  the  militia  of  the  State  but  Iree  white  citiz  -ns  ;_and  tjie 
same  provision  is  found  in  a  suU-equent  collection  of  the  laws,  niadt!  in  1855. 
Nothing  coulil  more  strongly  mark  the  entire  repudiation  of  the  African  race.  The 
alien  is  exclude<l,  becnu-ie,  being  born  in  a  loreign  country,  ho  cannot  be  a  member 
ol  the  community  iiniil  he  is  naturalized.  But  wliy  are  tlv  AlViean  race,  born  in 
the  State,  not  p-rmitted  to  share  in  oni;  of  the  highest  duties  of  the  citizen?  The  an- 
f-w.  r  is  obviou-;  he  is  not,  by  the  institutions  and  laws  of  the  State,  numbered 
among  its  peo|)le.  He  lonns  no  part  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  and  is  not 
thereiore  c  illed  on  to  uphold  and  defend  it. 

Agiin.  in  1822,  Rhode  Island,  in  its  revised  code,  passed  alaw  forb'dling  persons 
wh)°were  authorized  to  join  persons  in  marriage,  from  joining  in  marriage  any 
whi  e  person  with  aay  negro,  Indian,  or  mulatto,  under  the  p  malty  of  two  hundred 
dollars,  aud  declaring  all  such  marriages  absolutely  null  and  Void;  aad  the  same  law 


24  TIIK  I)RE1>  SCOTT  DECISION. 

was  ajrain  re  enacted  in  its  revis-d  co.l<-  of  1844.  So  that,  down  to  the  last-mon- 
ti-ned  poriod,  the  .stio  li^'cst  mark  of  Inferiority  and  degradation  was  fastened  upon 
the  Afiican  race  in  Ihiit  State. 

It  would  be  impop.Mlile  to  enumerate  and  comprc-is  in  the  ?pace  usually  allotted 
to  an  opinion  of  a  court,  the  vari..ui^  laws,  marking  the  condtion  ot  thi.s  race, 
which  wen-  passed  from  time  to  time  after  {\v'  R'jvolutioii,  and  before  and  since  the 
adoption  of  ihe  Constitution  of  tiie  United  State.«.  In  addition  to  tlio.'-o  air.  ady  refer- 
red to,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  Chanc-llor  K<nt,  whise  accuracy  and  n  gemch  no 
one  will  qu'Slion,  states  in  the  sixth  edition  ol' his  Commentarii's  (published  in  1848, 
2  vols.,  258,  note  6.)  that  in  no  part  of  the  country  except  Maine,  did  the  African 
race,  in  point  of  fact,  participate  equally  with  the  whites  in  the  exercise  of  civil  and 
political  rights.  , 

The  legislation  of  the  States  therefore  shows,  in  a  manner  not  to  be  mistaken,  the 
inferior  a"id  subject  condition  of  that  nice  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  adopt'd, 
and  long  afterwards,  throughout  the  thirtei'ii  Stats  by  which  that  in>trnment  was 
framed;  and  it  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  ropect  due  to  these  States,  to  suppose 
that  they  regarded  at  that  time.  a«  fellow-citize.is  and  members  of  the  Fovereignty, 
a  class  of  beings  whom  they  had  thus  stigniatiz'd;  whom,  as  we  are  bound,  out  of 
respect  to  the  State  sovereignties,  to  assume  tin.  y  had  deemed  it  just  and  n.-cessary 
thus  to  stigmatize,  and  upon  whom  they  had  impressed  such  deep  and  enduring 
marks  of  inferiority  and  degradath  n;  or,  tliat  wh.nthey  met  in  convention  to  form 
the  Constitution,  they  looked  uponlhem  as  a  portion  of  th.nr  constituents,  or  d.'signed 
to  include  them  in  the  provisions  so  carefully  inserted  for  the  security  and  protec- 
tion of  the  liberties  and  rights  of  their  citizens.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  they 
intended  to  secure  to  them  rights,  and  privileges,  and  rank,  in  the  new  political 
body  throughout  the  Union,  which  every  one  of  th.m  denied  within  the  limits  of  its 
own  dominion.  More  especially,  it  cannot  be  believed  that  the  large  slaveliolding 
States  regarded  tin  m  as  incUub'd  in  the  word  citizens,  or  would  have  consented  to 
a  Constitution  which  might  compel  them  to  receive  ihera  in  that  character  from 
another  State.  For  if  they  were  so  received,  and  entitled  to  the  privileges  and  im- 
munities of  citizens,  it  would  exempt  them  from  the  operation  of  the  special  laws 
and  from  the  police  regulaiions  which  they  considered  to  be  necessary  for  their  «.wn 
safety.  It  would  give  to  persons  of  the  negro  race,  who  were  recognized  as  citizena 
in  any  one  State  of  th-  Union,  the  right  to  enter  every  other  Stale  whenever  they 
pleased,  singly  or  in  companies,  without  pass  or  passport,  and  without  ob-truclion, 
to  sojourn  there  as  long  as  they  pleased,  to  go  where  they  plea-ed  at  every  h<_)ur  of 
the  day  or  night  without  molestation,  unless  they  committed  some  vh.lation  of 
law  for  which  awhile  man  would  be  punished;  and  it  would  give  them  the  full 
liberty  of  sp  -ech  in  public  and  in  private  upon  all  subjects  upon  which  lis  own 
citizens  might  speak  ;  to  hold  public  meetings  upon  political  all'aiis,  and  lo  k-'cp 
and  cairy  arms  wherever  they  went.  And  all  of  this  w.aild  be  done  in  the  face  of 
the  subject  race  of  Ihe  sain-  color,  both  free  and  slaves,  and  inevitably  producing 
discontent  and  insubordination  amung  them,  and  endangering  the  peace  and  safety 
of  the  Slate.  ^,    ,       ,       ,    ,,. 

It  is  impossible,  it  would  seem,  to  believe  that  the  great  men  of  the  slav.holding 
States,  who  took  so  large  a  share  in  framing  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Suites, 
and  exercised  so  much  influence  in  procuring  its  adoption,  could  hav.'  been  so  for- 
getful or  regardless  of  their  own  safety  and  the  safety  of  those  who  trusted  and 
confided  in  them.  •  i     .     •.. 

Besides,  this  want  of  foresight  and  care  would  have  been  utterly  inconsist.nt  with 
the  caution  displayed  in  piovidingfor  the  admission  of  new  members  into  this  polit- 
ical family.  For,"  when  tiiev  gave  to  the  citizens  of  each  State  the  piivilegos  and 
immiinilies  of  citiz  ns  in  the  several  Slates,  they  at  Ihe  same  time  took  from  the 
several  States  the  power  of  naturalizaiion.  and  confined  that  p.iwer  exclusively 
to  the  F.'deial  Government.  No  Slate  was  willing  to  p(>rmit  another  Siate  to  d."- 
terminc  who  should  or  should  not  be  adinitled  as  one  of  its  citizens,  end  entitled 
to  demand  o  inal  rights  an.l  privil-ges  wiih  their  own  p  '.iple,  within  their  .iwn  ter- 
ritories. The  right  of  naUiralizition  was  therelore.  wiili  .mo  accord,  snrrender.'d 
by  the  States,  and  confided  t )  the  Federal  Government  And  this  power  gran  ed 
to  Congress  lo  establish  an  uniform  rule  of  natur.iliznlwn  is.  by  the  well  understood 
moaning  of  ihe  w.u-d.  conlined  to  persons  born  in  a  for.'ign  country,  under  a  lor.Mgn 
Government.  It  is  not  a  power  10  rai.se  to  the  rank  of  a  citizen  any  one  liorii  in  the 
United  States,  who,  from  b  rth  or  parentige.  by  ihe  laws  of  the  counlry.  belongs 
to  au  inferior  and  subonliiiatu  class.    And  when  we  find  the  States  guarding  them- 


u 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  25 

selves  from  the  indiscreet  or  improper  admission  by  other  States  of  emigrants  from 
other  countries,  by  giving  the  power  exclusively  to  Congress,  we  camiot  fail  to  si  e 
that  they  could  never  have  left  with  the  States  a  much  m  ire  important  power- 
that  i*.  the  power  of  transforming  into  citizL'us  a  innnerous  class  of  persons,  who  in 
that  cliaracter  would  be  much  more  dangerous  to  the  peace  and  safely  of  a  large  por- 
tion oftlio  Union,  than  the  few  foreigners  one  of  theStates  might  improperly  naturalize. 

The  Constitution  upon  its  adoption  obviously  toolc  from  the  Slates  all  power 
by  any  sub-equent  legislation  to  introduce  as  a  citizen  into  the  political  family  of 
the  United  States  any  one,  no  matter  where  he  was  born,  or  what  might  be  his 
character  or  Ci;ndiiioa  ;  and  it  gave  to  Congress  the  power  to  confer  tins  character 
uiion  tiiose  only  who  wi're  born  outside  of  the  dominions  of  the  United  States. 
And  no  law  of  a  State,  therefore,  passed  since  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  caa 
give  any  right  of  citizenship  out>ide  of  its  own  territory. 

A  clauseVimilar  to  the  one  in  the  Con-titution,  in  relation  to  the  rights  and  im- 
munities of  citizens  of  one  State  in  the  other  States,  was  contained  in  ihe  Articles 
of  Confederation.  But  there  is  a  ditf.-rence  of  language,  which  i-^  worthy  of  note. 
The  provision  in  the  Anicles  of  Confederation  was  ■'  that  the  free  inhabitants  of 
each  of  the  States.  paupiTs,  vagabonds,  and  fugitives  from  justice,  excepted  should 
be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  free  citiz'^ns  in  the  several  States. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  under  this  Confederation,  each  State  had  the  rmht  to  de- 
cide for  itself,  and  in  its  own  tribunals,  whom  it  would  acknowledge  as  a  free  inhab- 
itant of  another  State.  The  term  free  inhabitant,  in  the  generality  of  us  terms, 
would  certainly  include  one  of  the  African  race  who  had  been  manumitted.  But  no 
example,  we  think,  can  be  found  of  his  admission  to  all  the  privileges  of  citizenship 
in  any  Slate  of  the  Union  after  these  Articles  were  formed,  and  while  they  contin- 
ued ill  force.  And,  notwithstanding  the  generality  of  the  words  "  fi  ee  inhabitants, 
it  is  very  clear  that,  according  to  their  accepted  meaning  in  that  day,  they  did  not 
include  the  African  race,  wiieiher  free  or  not:  for  the  fifth  section  of  the  ninth 
article  provides  that  Congress  i-hould  have  the  power  "  to  agree  upon  the  number 
ot  land  forces  to  be  raised,  and  to  make  requisitions  from  each  Staie  for  its  quota 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  tvhite  iuhabitanti  in  such  State,  which  requisition 
should  be  binding."  ,   ^,     ,.         <•  j- 

Words  cou'd  hardly  have  been  used  which  more  strongly  mark  the  line  ot  dis- 
tinction between  the  citizen  and  the  subject;  the  free  and  the  subjugated  races. 
The  latter  were  not  even  counted  when  the  inhabitants  of  a  State  were  to  be  em- 
bodied in  proportion  to  its  numbers  for  the  general  defence.  And  it  cannot  for  a 
momf  nt  be  supposed,  that  a  class  of  persons  thus  separated  and  rejected  from  those 
who  formed  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  were  yet  intended  to  be  included  under 
the  words  "free  inhabitants,"  in  the  preceding  article,  to  whom  privileges  and 
immunit'es  were  so  carefully  secured  in  every  State.  .     . 

But  altliough  this  clause  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  is  the  same  m  principle 
•with  that  inserted  in  the  Constitution,  yet  the  comprehensive  word  inhabitunt, 
which  iiii',dit  be  construed  to  include  an  emancipated  slave,  is  omitted;  and  the 
privilege  is  confined  to  citizens  of  the  State.  And  this  alteration  in  words  would 
hardly  have  been  made,  unless  a  different  meaning  was  intended  to  be  conveyed,  or 
a  possible  doubt  removed.  The  just  and  fair  inference  is,  that  as  this  privilege  was 
afiout  to  be  placed  under  the  protection  of  the  General  Government,  and  the  words 
expounded  by  its  tribunals,  and  all  power  in  relation  to  it  taken  from  the  S:ateand 
its  couits,  it  was  deemed  prudent  to  describe  with  precision  and  caution  the  persons 
to  whom  this  high  privih'ge  was  given— and  the  word  ci/ism  was  on  that  account 
substituted  for  the  words  free  inhabitant.  The  word  ciliz(  n  excluded,  and  no  doubt 
intended  to  exclude,  foreigners  who  had  not,  become  citizens  of  si  me  one  of  the 
Stati  s  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted;  and  also  every  description  of  persons 
who  were  not  fully  recognised  as  citizens  in  the  several  States.  Tlii<,  upon  any  fair 
construetion  of  the  instruments  to  which  we  have  referred,  was  evidently  the  object 
and  purpo-e  of  this  change  of  words. 

To  ail  this  ma's  of  proof  we  have  still  to  add,  that  Congress  has  npeatcdly  legis- 
lated upon  the  same  construction  of  the  Cons  itut  on  that  we  have  given.  Three 
laws,  two  of  which  were  pussed  almost  immediately  after  the  Government  went  into 
op'ration,  will  l)e  abundantly  sufficient  to  show  this.  The  two  first  are  particularly 
worthy  of  notice,  because  many  of  the  men  who  assisted  in  training  the  Constitution, 
and  took  an  active  part  in  procuring  its  adoption,  were  then  in  the  halls  of  legisla- 
tion, and  ceriainly  undersiood  what  they  meant  when  they  used  the  words  '-people 
Of  the  United  Stat.s  "  and  "  citizen  "  in  that  well-coasidered  instrument. 


^ 


26  THE  DliED  SCOTT  DECISION 

The  first  of  these  nct'^  is  the  naloralizat'ou  law.  which  was  passed  at  the  second 
Bessoii  of  th"  first  Co  i<^re«s.  March  2().  ITjQ,  andcoatiaes  the  right  of  becomiug  citi- 
zens "  td  aliens  bein^free  white  persons  " 

Now.  the  Consiitutioa  does  n'>t  limit  the  power  of  Congress  in  this  re^p^et  to 
white  pM-son*.  A  ul  ih  y  may.  if  they  think  proper,  anth  iriz-^  the  n.itura'.izit  on  "f 
any  one  nf  any  color,  wlio  was  born  under  allef^iance  to  another  Governm.  at.  But 
tlie  l;in:u;ii;e  of  tin-  law  above  quoted,  sliows  tint  citz  nsh'p  at  th  it  tim'i  wa-  p'^r- 
fectly  under-itood  to  be  confined  to  the  while  race  ;  and  that  they  alone  constituted 
the  -overeignty  in  the  gover.iment. 

Ci)n;»res.s  mi;;ht,  as  we  before  said,  have  author  zed  the  nat  iraVzation  of  Indians, 
bec;iu-ie  they  were  aliens  and  foreigner--.  But,  in  their  ihe:i  untutored  aid  savage 
state,  no  one  would  have  thought  of  admittiiii;  th-ni  asc  tiz!u^  in  a  civiliz-'d  ora- 
munjty.  And,  m  u-eover.  th  •  alroeiti-s  tiny  li  id  but  recently  cimimitted.  when  th-y 
were  tlie  allies  of  Great  Brit.iin  in  the  R  -voiulionary  war,  wt  re  yet  fasli  in  th'-reeol- 
lect  on  of  the  people  of  the  United  St  ites.  and  they  were  even  tiien  guard  ng  t'lem- 
Eelv  s  against  the  threatened  renewal  of  Indian  ho.stiliti'S.  No  one  supposed  then 
tliat  any  Indian  would  ask  f>r.  or  w.is  capable  .f  enjoying  ih'^  piivil-ge-^  "fan 
Americaucitzeu,  and  the  word  white  was  not  used  w^th  any  particular  refennce  to 
them. 

Neitlier  wa.s  it  u=!ed  with  any  reference  to  the  African  race  imported  into  or  born 
in  this  country;  because  Congre-s  had  no  pow  r  to  natur  dz"  th-m.  and  therefore 
there  was  no  nee 's-ity  for  using  pariinilar  words  to  e.xclnde  th -m. 

It  would  seem  t'»  have  been  used  m-rely  because  it  fcdlowed  out  tlie  line  of  divi- 
sion wiiich  the  d'ns'itution  has  drawn  between  the  citizen  r:vce.  who  form  d  and 
h'  Id  the  Government,  and  the  African  race,  which  they  held  in  subject  on  and 
slavery,  and  governed  at  their  own  plea-siire. 

Another  of  th"  early  laws  of  wliich  we  have  spoken,  is  the  first  militia  law.  which 
was  passed  in  1792,  at  the  first  session  of  the  second  Congres-s.  The  languaije  of 
this  law  is  equally  plain  and  significini  with  the  one  just  ni'  nt'oncd.  It  directs  that 
every  '-free  ablelbodied  white  male  citizen'  shall  l;e  enroll,  d  in  the  niiUtia.  The 
word  Mj/uVe  is  eviiently  used  to  exclu'le  the  African  race,  and  tlie  word  -citizMr' 
to  exclude  unnaturalized  foreigners  ;  the  latter  forming  no  p  irt  of  the  soveieignty, 
owing  it  no  allegian  e,  and  therof  )re  under  no  oldigation  to  defend  it.  Thi  Airicim 
race,  however,  bor.i  in  the  country,  did  owe  alle<>i.ince  to  th  •  Government,  whetlwT 
they  w  re  s'aves  or  free;  but  it  is  repudiat  d.  and  rejected  from  the  duties  and  obli- 
g.itioiis  of  citizenship  in  marked  lanij;uage. 

Tiie  tliiid  act  to  which  we  hive  alluded  is  even  still  more  decisive;  it  wa«  parsed 
as  la:e  as  181:5,  (2  Stnt,  h09.)  and  it  provides:  "  that  from  and  after  the  toruiiua- 
tion  of  th  ;  war  in  which  the  United  S:at-s  are  now  engag  d  with  Great  Br  tain,  it 
sh  ill  not  lie  lawful  lo  employ,  on  board  of  any  pul>lij  or  private  ves.sels  of  the 
Uiii  ed  Stat 's.  any  pers m  or  persons  except  citizen.s  of  the  Uuit.d  .States,  or  persons 
of  color,  natives  <  f  the  United  Stales." 

Here  the  line  of  distinction  is  drawn  in  express  words.  Prrsons  of  color,  in  the 
ju'lginent  of  Con,'n-ss,  were  n't  included  in  the  w•^rd  citizens,  and  they  are  described 
as  another  and  d  tferent  class  of  p-isons,  and  authorized  to  be  employed,  if  bora  in 
the  United  St  it"S. 

And  even  as  lute  as  1^20,  (chap.  lOi,  sec.  8.)  in  the  charter  to  the  c  ty  of  \Vash- 
ingtou.  the  corporation  is  authorized  "  to  restrain  and'prohibit  the  niglr.ly  and 
other  di-onlerly  meetings  of  slaves,  free  negroes,  and  mula'toes."'  tiius  a-so;iating 
them  tOL-^ether  in  its  legislation;  and  after  prescril)ing  the  punishment  that  may  be 
inliict 'd  on  the  si  ive«.  jiroceeds  in  the  following  words-.  '•  And  to  punish  such  tree 
negroes  and  mulatto "s  l»v  penalties  not  exceeding  twentv  dollars  for  any  o;ie  offence; 
and  in  cise  of  the  in  ibility  of  any  su.h  free  negro  or  mulatto  to  pay  any  such  p-n- 
alty  a  id  cost  thereon,  to  cause  iiira  or  her  to  be  co;iHned  lo  hibor  for  any  lini"  not 
ex(;eed  ng  six  calendar  mouths''  And  in  a  subsequent  part  of  the  saiiie  section, 
th' act  authorizes  tlie  corporation  "  to  prescribe  the  terms  and  coiul.tions  upon 
\vfv<-,'>  free  n  -groes  and  mulittoes  may  reside  in  the  city." 

Ths  law.  like  the  laws  of  the  States,  shows  that  this  class  of  persons  were  gov- 
prned  by  special  lerr  slation  directed  expresdy  to  thun.  and  always  connected  with 
provi-iois  for  the  governmi-nt  of  slaves,  and  not  with  tliose  lor  the  government  of 
fie;  white  citizens.  And  after  such  an  uniform  course  of  Icc'sla'ion  as  we  have 
stated,  by  the  colo  lies,  by  ih  ■  States,  and  by  Congress  running  ihroigh  a  period  of 
m>re  than  a  ceutny.  it  would  seem  that  lo  call  persons  thus  marked  and  stigmati- 
zed, "citizens"  of  the  United  States,  "fellow-citizens,'' a  coustitueut  part  of  the 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  27 

sovereignty,  wouM  be  an  abuse  of  terms,  and  not  calculated  to  exalt  the  character 
or  an  American  citizen  in  the  eyos  of  other  nations. 

The  conduct  of  the  Executive  D''paitra'»nt  of  the  Government  has  been  in  per- 
fect harmony  npon  this  subject  with  this  course  of  Icjjislat  on.  Thi;  qncstiou  was 
brought  ofBcially  before  the  late  Williim  Wirt,  when  he  was  the  At'onipy  Gi'ni'ral 
of  the  United  States,  in  1821,  and  he  decidi'd  that  the  words  '•'  citizL-ns  of  the  United 
Statfs  ■'  were  u?ed  in  the  acts  of  Congress  in  the  same  sen<e  as  in  the  Constitution; 
and  that  free  p'?rson3  of  color  were  not  citizf^ns.  within  the  m"aning  of  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws;  and  this  opinion  has  been  confirra'd  by  that  of  the  late  Attorney 
General,  Caleb  Cushing.  in  a  recent  case,  and  acted  upon  by  ttie  Secrotiry  of 
State,  who  refused  to  grant  passports  to  them  as  "  citiz  jns  of  the  United  States." 

But  it  is  said  that  a  person  may  be  a  citizen,  and  entitled  to  that  character,  al- 
though he  does  not  possess  all  the  rights  which  may  belong  to  other  Lit'zons;  as,  for 
example,  the  right  to  vote,  or  to  hold  p  irticular  o!Q;es ;  and  that  yet,  wlion  he. 
goes  into  another  .-^tate,  he  is  entitled  to  be  recogniz  hI  there  as  a  citizen,  although 
the  State  may  measure  his  rights  by  the  rights  which  it  allows  to  persons  of  a  liko 
character  or  class  resident  in  t:ie  State,  and  refuse  to  him  the  full  rights  of  citizen 
ship. 

This  argument  overlooks  the  language  of  the  provision  in  the  Constitution  of 
which  we  are  speaking. 

Undoubtedly,  a  person  may  be  a  citizen,  that  is,  a  member  of  the  community  who 
form  the  sovere'gnty,  although  he  exercises  no  share  of  the  political  power,  and  is 
incapacitated  frim  holding  p. irt'cular  office.  Women  and  minors,  who  form  a  part 
of  the  political  fimily,  cannot  vote  ;  and  when  a  property  qualification  is  reqnired 
to  vote  cr  hold  a  pirticular  office,  those  who  have  not  the  necessary  qualihcation 
cannot  vote  or  hold  the  office,  yet  they  are  citizen'. 

So.  too,  a  person  may  be  entitled  to  vote  by  the  law  of  the  Stato,  who  is  not  a 
citizen  even  of  the  State  itself.  And  in  f-ome  of  the  States  of  the  Union  foreigners 
not  naturalized  are  allowed  to  vote.  And  the  State  m  ly  give  the  right  to  free 
negroes  and  mul.ittoes.  but  that  does  not  make  ih  m  citizens  of  the  State,  and  still 
le.«s  of  the  United  States.  And  the  provision  in  the  Constitution  giving  privileges 
and  immunities  in  other  States,  do"S  not  apply  to  them. 

Neither  does  it  apply  to  a  person  who.  b-i:ig  the  citizen  of  a  State,  m'grates  to 
another  State.  For  then  he  becomes  subject  to  the  Jaws  of  the  State  in  which  he 
lives,  and  ho  is  no  longer  a  citizen  of  the  St  ite  from  which  he  removed.  And  the 
State  in  whch  he  reside-?  may  then,  unquestionably,  determine  his  status  or  condi- 
tion, and  place  him  among  the  cl  iss  of  persons  who  are  not  recognized  as  citizens, 
but  belong  to  an  inferior  and  subject  race  ;  and  may  deny  him  the  privileges  and 
immunities  enjoyed  by  its  citizens. 

But  so  far  as  mine  rights  of  persons  are  concerned,  Ihs  provision  in  question  is 
confined  to  citizens  of  a  State  who  are  temp'  larily  in  another  Sate  without  taking 
up  their  residence  there.  It  gives  them  no'political  rights  in  the  Slate,  as  to  voting 
or  holding  office,  or  in  any  other  respect.  For  a  citizen  of  one  Stite  has  no  ri'.'ht 
to  p  irticipate  in  the  government  ot  another.  But  if  he  rank-  as  a  citizen  in  tlie 
State  to  which  he  belongs,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  then,  whenever  he  goes  into  another  State.  t!ie  Constitution  clothes  him.  aa 
to  the  rijihts  of  person,  with  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  which  belong  to  citi- 
zens of  the  State.  And  if  persons  of  the  African  race  are  citiz  -ns  of  a  State,  and 
of  the  United  States,  they  would  b'?  entitled  to  ail  tliese  privileges  and  immunitie? 
in  every  State,  and  the  State  could  not  restrict  them  ;  for  they  would  hold  these 
privileges  and  immunities  under  the  paramount  authority  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, and  its  courts  would  l)e  bound  to  maintain  and  enforce  them,  the  Constitu- 
tion nn  1  laws  of  the  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  And  if  the  States  could 
limit  or  restrict  them,  or  place  the  party  in  an  inferior  grade,  this  clause  of  the 
Constitution  would  be  unmeaning,  and  could  have  no  opnation  ;  ;ind  would  give 
no  rights  to  the  citizen  when  in  anoth-r  State.  lie  would  have  non-  but  whit  the 
State  itself  chise  to  allow  him.  This  is  evidently  not  the  construction  or  ra'-aning 
of  the  clause  in  question.  11  guaranties  rights,  to  the  citizen,  and  the  State  cannot 
withhold  them.  And  these  rights  are  of  a  character  and  would  lead  to  consequences 
which  make  it  absolutely  certain  that  the  .\(rican  race  were  not  included  under  the 
name  of  citizeiis  of  a  State,  and  were  not  in  the  contemplation  of  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution  when  these  privileges  and  immunities  were  provided  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  citizen  in  f)ther  States. 

The  case  of  Legrand  v.  Uarnall  (  2  Peters,  664 )  has  been  referred  to  for  the  pur- 


28  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

pose  of  sbowiiinf  tliat  this  court  lias  (lec'uled  that  the  d'scendant  of  a  slave  may  sue 
as  a  citize.i  in  a  court  of  the  Unitwl  States;  but  the  case  itself  shows  that  the  ques- 
tion did  not  arise  and  could  not  have  arisen  in  the  case. 

It  appear-  from  the  report,  that  Darnall  was  born  in  Maryland,  and  was  the  son 
of  a  white  man  liy  one  of  his  slaves,  and  his  father  executed  certain  instmrnenls  to 
manumit  hirn,  and  d'vised  to  him  some  landed  properly  in  the  State.  This  property 
Darnall  aft'-rw.irds  sold  to  L"grand,  the  appellant,  who  give  his  notes  for  ihi'  pnr- 
ch.ise-mon'-y.  But  becouiing  afterwards  apprehensive  that  the  app<dlee  had  not 
b  e.i  emancipated  according  to  the  laws  of  Maryland,  he  refused  to  pay  the  notes 
until  he  could  be  better  satisfied  as  to  Darnall's  right  to  convey.  Darnall,  in  the 
mean  time,  had  taken  up  his  ns'dence  in  Pennsylvania,  and  brought  suit  on  the 
notes,  and  recovered  judgment  in  the  Circuit  Court  f  jr  the  district  of  .Maryland. 

The  whole  proce  'ding,  as  appears  by  the  n-port,  w  is  a  i  amic  ible  one  ;  Legrand 
•being  p'lfectly  willing  to  pay  the  money,  if  he  could  obtain  a  tit'e,  and  Darnall 
not  wishing  him  to  pay  unless  he  could  make  him  a  good  one.  In  point  of  fact,  the 
whole  proceeding  was  under  the  direction  of  the  counsel  who  argnel  the  case  for 
the  appellee,  who  was  the  mutual  friend  of  the  parties,  and  confided  in  by  both  of 
them,  and  who-e  only  objict  was  to  have  the  rights  of  both  parlies  established  by 
judi -ial  decision  in  the  most  sp  -edy  and  lea.st  e.xpen>ive  manner. 

Lfgrand,  ther.'fore,  raised  no  olyection  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  the  suit 
at  law.  b  -cause  he  was  himself  anxious  to  obtain  the  judgm"nt  of  the  court  upon 
hi<  tile.  Consequently,  there  was  nothing  in  the  record  before  the  court  to  show 
that  Daraall  w.i.s  of  African  descent,  and  the  usual  ju  Igment  and  asvard  of  execu- 
tion was  entered.  And  L'giand  thereupon  filed  his  bill  on  the  equity  side  of  the 
Circuit  Court,  stating  that  Darnall  was  born  a  slave,  and  had  not  been  legally  em- 
ancip  ited,  aid  could  not  therefore  take  the  land  devis.'d  to  him,  nor  make  Legrand 
a  good  title  ;  and  praying  an  injunction  to  restrain  Darnall  from  proceeding  to  ex- 
ecution on  the  judgment,  which  was  granted.  Darnall  answered,  averring  in  his 
answer  that  he  was  a  free  man,  and  capable  of  conveying  a  good  title.  T<stimony 
was  taken  oa  this  p  lint,  and  at  the  hearing  the  Circuit  Court  was  of  opinion  that 
Darnall  wa<  a  free  man  and  his  title  good,  and  dissolved  the  injunction  and  dismiss- 
ed the  bill ;  and  ihat  decree  was  aflirmed  here,  upon  the  appeal  of  Legrand. 

Now,  it  is  difficult  to  im  igine  how  any  question  about  the  citizenship  of  Darnall, 
or  his  right  to  sue  in  that  character,  can  be  supposed  to  have  ari-^en  or  heen  decided 
in  that  cas  ■.  The  fact  that  he  was  of  African  descent  was  first  brought  before  the 
court  upon  the  bill  in  equity.  The  suit  at  law  had  th 'n  pas-ed  into  judgment  and 
award  of  execution,  and  the  Circuit  Court,  as  a  court  of  law,  had  no  longer  any 
authority  over  it.  It  was  a  valid  and  legal  judgment,  which  the  court  ihit  rendered 
it  had  n  a  tie  power  to  reverse  or  set  aside.  And  unless  it  had  juri-diction  as  a 
court  of  equity  to  restrain  him  from  using  Its  process  as  a  court  of  law,  Dirnall.  if 
he  thought  proper,  wouhl  have  been  at  liberty  to  proceed  on  his  judgment,  and 
compel  the  payment  of  tin;  money,  although  the  allegatiois  in  the  bill  were  true, 
and  he  was  incapable  of  making  a  title.  No  other  cjurt  coulJ  have  enjoined  him, 
for  certainly  no  .Stite  equity  court  could  interfere  in  that  way  with  the  judgment 
of  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States. 

But  Ihi  C:rc  lit  Court;  as  a  court  of  equity  certainly  had  equity  jurisdiction  over 
its  own  judgm  -nt  as  a  court  of  law,  without  regard  to  the  cliaracler  of  the  parties  ; 
and  had  not  only  the  right,  but  it  was  its  duty — no  matt-r  who  were  the  pariit'S  in 
the  judgment— to  prevent  them  from  proceed  ng  to  enforce  it  by  execution,  if  the 
court  was  satisti-d  that  the  money  was  not  justly  and  equitably  due.  The  ability 
of  Darnall  to  convey  did  not  dep -nd  upon  his  citiz'uship,  hut  upon  his  title  to  free- 
dom. And  if  h  •  was  fr  e,  he  could  hold  and  convey  prop  rty,  by  the  laws  of  .Mary- 
land, aithougli  he  wa-i  not  a  citizen.  But  if  he  was  liy  law  still  a  slave,  he  could 
not.  It  was  t'p'ivTore  the  duty  of  the  court,  sitting  a-*  a  court  of  equity  in  the  latter 
case,  'o  prevent  him  from  u-ing  its  process,  as  a  court  of  common  law,  to  compel 
Ihe  piymeut  of  th  ■  puicha-e  m.)uey,  when  it  was  evident  that  the  purchaser  must 
lose  the  land.  But  if  he  was  free,  and  could  make  a  title,  it  was  equally  the  duty 
of  'he  court  not  to  suffr  L  'grand  to  k'ep  the  land,  and  refuse  the  payment  of  the 
money,  upon  tae  gr^iun  I  t!iat  Darnall  was  inc  ipabh;  of  suing  or  Ijeing  su  'd  as  a 
citizen  in  a  coart  o;  the  United  States.  The  character  or  c;tiz  n-hip  of  the  parlies 
had  no  conu'-ction  with  the  (jueslion  of  jurisdiction,  and  the  ma'ter  in  dispute  had 
no  r  lation  to  th  •  citizenship  of  Darnall.  Nor  is  such  a  question  alluded  to  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Court. 

Besides,  we  are  by  no  means  prepared  to  say  that  there  are  not  many  cases,  civil 


THE  URED  SCOTT  DECISION.  29 

as  well  03  criminal,  in  which  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  may  exercise  ju- 
risdiction, although  one  of  the  African  race  is  a  party  ;  that  broad  question  is  not 
before  the  court.  ^  The  question  with  which  we  are  now  dealin-j;  is.  wh.th.  r  a  person 
of  the  African  race  can  l)e'a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  l)ecome  thireiiy  en- 
titl'd  to  a  spi'cial  privilege,  by  virtne  of  his  t.tle  to  that  character,  and  which,  un- 
d-.r  the  (Jon-titution.  no  one  biit  a  citizen  can  claim.  It  is  manlftst  that  t'le  ca-^e  of 
LeuTand  and  Dariiall  has  no  bearing  ou  that  question,  and  can  have  uo  applicalioa 
to  the  case  no >v  before  the  court.  ,,  -  „       .. 

This  case,  however,  strikingly  illustrates  the  consequences  that  would  follow  the 
construction  ol  the  Constitution  which  would  give  the  power  contended  f.>r  to  a 
State.  It  would  in  efif.'ct  give  it  also  to  an  individual.  For  if  tic  fath.-r  o(  young 
Darnall  had  manumitted  him  in  his  lifetime,  and  sent  him  to  re-ide  in  a  State  which 
recogn  zed  him  as  a  citizen,  he  might  have  visited  and  sojourned  in  Maryland  when 
he  pleased,  and  as  lo^g  as  he  pleased,  as  a  citizen  of  the  Unit-d  States ;  and  the 
State  officers  and  tribunals  would  be  compelled,  by  the  paramount  authority  of  the 
Consiitut'on,  to  receive  him  and  treat  him  as  one  of  its  citizens,  exempt  from  the 
laws  and  police  of  the  State  in  relation  to  a  person  of  that  description,  and  allow 
him  to  enjoy  all  tbe  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  withDUl  nspi'Ct  to  the  laws 
of  Maryland,  although  such  laws  were  deemed  by  it  absolutely  essential  to  its  own 
safety. 

The  only  two  provisions  which  point  to  them  and  include  them,  treat  them  aa 
property,  and  make  it  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  protect  it :  no  other  power, 
in  relation  to  this  race,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution  ;  and  as  it  is  a  Gov- 
ernm -nt  of  special,  del-gated,  powers,  no  authority  beyond  these  two  provi-ions 
can  be  constitutionally  exercised.  Tlie  Government  of  the  United  States  had  no 
right  to  ■nterlere  tor  any  other  purpose  but  that  of  protecting  the  rights  of  tlie  owner, 
leaving  it  aliOi^ether  with  the  several  States  to  deal  with  this  race,  whether  eman- 
cipated or  notr  as  each  State  may  think  justice,  humanity,  and  the  interests  and 
safety  of  socii'ty,  require.  The  States  evidently  intended  to  reserve  this  power  ex- 
clusivelv  t3  themselves. 

No  one,  we  presume,  supposes  that  any  change  in  public  opinion  or  feeling,  in 
relation  to  this  unfortunate  race,  in  the  civilized  nations  of  Europe  or  in  this  country, 
should  induce  the  court  to  give  to  the  words  of  the  Constitution  a  more  liberal 
cou'^truction  in  their  favor  than  they  were  intended  to  bear  when  the  instniraeiit 
was  framed  and  adopted.  Such  an  argument  would  be  altogether  inadmissible  in 
any  tribunal  called  on  to  interpret  it.  If  any  of  its  provisions  are  deemed  nnju-t, 
there  is  a  mode  prescribed  in  the  instrument  itself,  by  which  it  may  be  amended  ;  but 
while  it  remains  unaltered,  it  must  be  construed  now  as  it  was  understood  atthe 
time  of  its  adoption.  It  is  not  only  the  same  in  words,  but  the  same  in  meaning, 
and  delegates  the  -^ame  powers  to  the  Government,  and  reserves  and  secures  the 
same  rights  and  privileges  to  the  citizen  ;  and  as  long  as  it  continues  to  exist  in  its 
present  form,  it  speaks  not  only  in  the  same  words,  but  with  the  same  meaning  and 
intent  with  whieh  it  spoke  when  it  came  from  the  hands  of  its  framers,  and  was 
voted  on  and  adopted  by  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Any  other  rule  of  con- 
struction would  abrogate  the  judicial  character  of  this  court,  and  make  it  the  mere 
reflex  of  the  popular  opinion  or  passion  of  the  day.  This  court  was  not  created  fjy 
the  Constitution  for  such  purposes.  Higher  and  graver  trusts  have  been  confided 
to  it,  and  it  must  not  falter  in  the  path  of  duty. 

What  the  construction  was  at  that  time,  we  think  can  hardly  admit  of  doubt. 
We  have  the  language  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  of  the  Artich  s  ot 
Confederation,  in  addition  to  the  plain  words  of  the  Constitution  it-elf;  we  have 
the  legislation  of  the  different  States,  before,  about  the  time,  and  since,  the  Consti- 
tution was  adopted ;  we  have  the  legislation  of  Conijress,  from  the  time  of  its 
adoption  to  a  recent  period;  and  we  have  the  constant  and  uniform  action  of  the 
Executive  Department,  all  concurring  together,  and  heading  to  the  same  result 
And  if  anything  in  relation  to  the  construction  of  the  Constitution  can  be  regarded 
as  settled,  it  is  that  which  we  now  give  to  the  word  '•  citizen  "  and  the  word  "people." 

And  upon  a  full  and  careful  consideration  of  the  subject,  the  court  is  of  opinion, 
that,  upon  the  fact-i  stated  in  the  plea  in  abatement,  Drd  Scott  was  not  a  citizen  ()t 
Missouri  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  not  enti- 
tled as  such  to  sue  in  its  courts;  and,  consequently,  that  the  Circuit  Court  had  no 
iurisdictiou  of  the  case,  and  that  the  judgment  on  the  plea  in  abatim  nt  is  erroneous. 

We  are  aware  that  doubts  are  entertained  by  some  of  the  members  of  the  court, 
whether  the  plea  in  abatement  is  legally  before  the  court  upon  this  writ  of  error* 


30  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

but  if  that  plr>a  is  regarded  as  waived,  or  out  of  the  case  upon  any  other  groundj 
yet  the  qiiesiion  as  to  the  juridiction  of  the  Circuit  Court  is  presented  on  the  face 
of  the  bill  of  txception  itself,  taken  by  thi"  plaintiff  at  the  trial;  fur  he  admits  that 
he  and  his  wife  w  re  born  slaves,  but  endeavors  lo  mflic  out  his  title  to  freedom 
and  citizen-hip  by  showing  that  they  were  taken  by  their  owner  to  certain  places, 
hervinalt  r  mentioned,  where  slavery  could  not  by  law  exist,  and  that  they  thereby 
became  free,  and  upon  their  return  to  Missouri  became  citizens  of  that  State. 

Now,  if  ihe  removal  of  which  he  .speaks  did  not  give  them  their  freedom,  then  by 
his  own  admissiiiu  he  is  still  a  slave;  and  whatever  opinions  may  be  entertained  ia 
favor  of  the  ciiizenship  ot  a  free  person  of  ihe  African  race,  no  one  supposes  that  a 
slave  is  a  citizen  of  the  Stat"  or  of  the  United  Stats.  If,  th>'refore.  the  acts  dune 
by  his  own.r  did  not  make  them  free  pei>ons,  he  is  still  a  slave,  and  certainly  inca- 
pable of  suing  in  the  character  of  a  citizen. 

The  principle  of  law  is  too  well  settled  to  be  disputed,  that  a  court  can  give  no 
judgment,  for  either  party,  where  it  has  no  jurisdiction;  and  if,  upon  the  showing  of 
Scott  him-elf,  it  app  -ared  that  he  was  still  a  slave,  the  >^as-  ought  to  have  been  dis- 
missed, and  the  judL'ment  against  him  and  in  favor  ol  the  defendant  lor  costs,  is.  like 
that  on  the  plea  in  abatement,  erroneous,  and  the  suit  ought  to  have  been  di.-missed 
by  the  Circuit  Court  for  want  of  jurisdiction  in  that  court. 

But,  before  we  proceed  to  exannne  this  p  irt  of  the  case,  it  may  be  proper  to  no- 
tice an  objection  taken  to  the  judicial  authority  of  tins  court  to  decide  it;  and  it  has 
been  said,  that  as  this  court  has  decided  against  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Circuit  Court 
on  the  plea  in  abatement,  it  has  no  right  to  examine  any  question  presented  by  the 
exceptio.i;  and  that  anything  it  may  say  upon  that  part  of  the  case  will  be  extra-ju 
dicial,  and  mere  obiter  dicta. 

This  is  a  manifest  mistake  ;  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  jurisdiction  of  thib 
court  to  revise  t!ie  judgment  of  a  Circuit  Court,  and  to  reverse  it  for  any  error  ap 
parent  on  the  record,  whether  it  be  the  error  of  giving  judgment  in  a  case  ovei 
which  it  had  no  jur  sdiction.  or  any  other  material  error;  and  this,  too,  whethei 
there  is  a  plea  in  abatement  or  not. 

The  objection  appears  to  have  aris?n  from  confounding  writs  of  error  to  a  State 
court,  with  writs  uf  error  to  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States.  Undoubtedly, 
upoii  a  writ  ot  error  to  a  Slate  court,  uiili  ss  the  record  shows  a  case  that  gives  ju 
risdiciion,  ihe  case  must  be  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction  in  this  court.  And  if 
it  is  dismissed  on  that  ground,  we  have  no  rigiit  to  examine  and  decide  upon  any 
questio.i  presented  by  the  bill  of  exceptions,  or  any  other  part  of  the  record.  Bui 
writs  of  error  to  a  State  court,  and  to  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  are  reg- 
ulated by  different  laws,  and  stand  upou  entirely  difierent  prineiple.s.  And  in  a 
writ  of  error  to  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  the  whole  record  is  before  this 
court  for  examination  and  decision;  and  if  the  fum  in  controversy  is  large  enough 
togive  juri-diciioii,  it  is  nut  only  the  right,  but  it  is  the  judicial  duty  of  the  court,  to 
examine  the  whole  cise  as  pres  nted  by  the  record;  and  if  it  appears  upou  its  face 
that  any  material  error  or  errors  have  been  committed  by  the  court  below,  it  is  the 
duty  of  this  court  to  reverse  the  judgment,  and  remand  the  case.  And  certa'nly  an 
error  in  p.is>ing  a  judgment  upon  tlie  merits  in  favor  of  either  party,  in  a  "case 
which  it  was  not  aiiihoriz'd  to  try,  and  over  which  it  had  no  jurisdiction,  is  as  grave 
an  error  as  a  court  can  commit. 

The  plea  in  abatement  is  not  a  plea  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court,  but  to  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Circuit  Court.  And  it  appwirs  by  the  record  before  us,  that  the 
Circuit  Court  c<  mniitted  an  error,  in  deciding  that  it  had  jurisdiction,  upon  the  facts 
in  the  case,  a  Imittrd  by  the  pie  ulings.  It  is  the  duty  ol  the  appellate  tribunal  to 
correct  this  error;  l)Ut  tiiat  coul  1  not  be  d  'Ue  by  dism'ssing  the  cas  •  for  want  of 
jurisdict  on  here — for  tiiat  would  leave  the  erroneous  judgment  in  full  force,  and 
the  injured  party  without  remedy.  And  the  app  dl  ite  court  tiiTelore  exercises  the 
power  for  wh  ch  alone  appellate  courts  are  con-tiiuted,  by  reversing  the  judg- 
ment of  the  court  lielov  for  this  error.  It  exercises  its  projier  and  appropriate 
jurisdiction  over  the  judgment  and  proceedings  of  the  Circuit  Court,  as  they  appear 
upon  the  record  hrotig'.it  up  by  the  writ  of  error. 

The  correct  on  of  one  erru-  in  the  court  below  does  not  deprive  the  appellate 
court  of  the  power  of  examining  further  into  the  record,  and  correcting  any  other  ma- 
terial errors  which  miy  have  bjen  comm  tied  by  the  inferior  court.  There  is  cer- 
tainly no  ml"  of  l.iw — nor  any  practice — nor  any  decision  of  a  court — which  even 
quesiions  this  power  in  tiie  ap|)ellate  tribunal.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  daily 
pract.ce  of  (his  court,  and  of  all  appellate  courts  where  they  reverse  the  judgment  of 


THE  DEED  SCOTT  DECISION.  31 

an  inferior  court  for  error,  to  correct  by  its  opinions  whatever  errors  iiny  nppear 
on  tliereconl  material  to  the  case;  and  they  have  always  held  it  to  be  tii<  ir  duty  to 
do  so  where  thesileiice  of  the  court  mi^'ht  lead  to  miseojistmcliinor  Aitinv  coniro- 
Ter.-y,  and  the  point  has  been  relied  on  by  cither  side,  an<l  aiyiied  before  tin-  cmirt. 
In  thecase  belore  us,  we  have  already  decided  that  the  Circuit  Court  irnd  iu 
deciding  th  it  it  had  jurisdiction  upon  the  lacts  admitted  by  tlie  pl'-adi  igs.  And  it 
appears  that,  in  the  further  prutrress  of  the  ca-e,  it  acted  upon  the  crr^  mous  priuci- 
pl  •  it  had  di  cided  nn  the  pleadin^is.  and  gave  judgment  for  the  defendant,  where, 
up  »n  the  fiicts  admitted  in  the  exc  ption,  it  had  no  jurisdicti<in. 

We  are  aialjss  to  under.-tand  nponwh^U  priiicipleof  law.  ai)plicable  to  appellate 
jurisdiction,  it  can  be  supposed  that  this  court  has  not  jud  cial  authority  to  coiTcct 
tile  l;ist-menlioned  error,  hecause  they  had  beforn  corrected  tlie  former;  or  by  what 
process  of  reasoning  it  can  be  made  out,  tliat  the  error  of  an  inf  rior  court  in  actu- 
ally pronouncing  judgment  for  one  of  the  parties,  iu  a  casein  whicli  it  had  no  juris- 
diction, cannot  be  looked  into  or  corrected  by  this  court.  bicau>e  we  have  decided 
a  similar  question  presented  iu  the  pb-adings.  The  last  point  is  distinctly  prehcited 
by  the  facts  contained  in  the  plaintiffs  own  bill  of  exceiiti"ns,  which  he  himself 
brings  here  by  this  writ  of  error.  It  was  the  point  which  cbieliy  occupied  theatt(,n- 
tion  of  the  counsel  on  both  sides  in  the  argument — and  tiiejudgmeuc  which  this  court 
must  render  up  )n  both  errors  is  precisely  the  same.  It  must,  iu  each  of  them,  exer- 
cise jurisdiction  over  the  judgment,  and  reverse  it  for  the  ermrs  committed  by  the 
court  below;  and  issu^  a  mandate  to  the  Circuit  Court  to  conform  iis  judgment  to 
the  opinion  pronounced  by  this  court,  by  dismissing  theca^e  for  want  of  jurisdicfon 
in  the  Circuit  Court.  This  is  the  constant  and  invariable  practice  of  this  court, 
where  it  reverses  a  judgment  for  want  of  jurisdiction  in  the  Circuit  Court. 
'  It  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  pursue  such  a  qmstion  furtlier.  The  want  of 
jurisdiction  in  the  court  below  may  appear  on  the  record  without  any  plea  in  abate- 
ra;nt.  This  is  familiarly  the  ca~e  where  a  court  of  chanctry  has  exercised  jurisdic- 
tion iu  a  case  where  the  plaintiff  had  a  plain  and  adequate  remedy  at  Liw,  and  it  so 
ajjpears  by  the  transcript  when  brought  here  by  appeal.  So  also  where  it  appears 
th.it  a  court  of  adniiiaity  has  exercised  jurisdiction  in  a  ca-e  belonging  exclusively 
to  a  Court  of  common  law.  In  the.se  cases  there  is  no  plea  in  abatrment.  And  for 
the  same  reason,  and  upon  the  same  principles,  where  the  defect  of  jurisdiction  is 
patent  on  the  record,  this  court  is  bound  to  reverse  the  judgment,  although  the  de- 
fendant has  not  pleaded  iu  abatement  to  tlie  jurisdiction  of  the,  inferior  court. 

The  cases  of  Jackson  v.  Ashtou  and  of  Caproa  v.  Van  Noorden,  to  which  we  have 
referred  in  a  previous  part  of  this  opinion,  are  directly  in  point.  In  the  la'^t-men- 
tioned  case,  Capron  brought  an  action  against  Van  Noorden  in  a  Circuit  Court  of 
tiie  United  States,  without  showing,  by  the  usual  averments  of  citizenship,  that  the 
court  had  jurisdiction.  There  was  no  plea  in  al)atement  put  in,  and  the  parties  went 
to  trial  upon  the  merits.  Tlie  court  gave  judgm"nt  in  favor  of  the  defendant  with 
costs.  The  plaintiff  thereupon  brought  his  writ  of  error,  and  thi-  court  reversed  the 
judgment  given  in  favor  of  the  defendant,  and  remanded  the  case  with  directions  to 
dismiss  it,  because  it  did  not  appear  by  the  transcript  that  the  Circuit  Court  had 
juiisdiction. 

Tlie  ca<e  before  us  still  more  strongly  imposes  upon  this  court  the  duty  of  examin- 
ing' whether  the  court  below  has  not  committed  an  error,  in  taking  juri.-diction  and 
giving  a  judgment  for  costs  in  favor  of  the  defendant;  for  in  Capron  v.  Van  Noordea 
the  judgment  was  reversed,  because  it  did  not  appear  that  the  p.irties  were  citizens 
of  different  Stat' s.  They  might  or  might  not  be.  But  in  thisc.iseit  docs  appear 
that  the  plaintiff  was  born  a  slave;  and  if  the  facts  upon  which  lie  rel  es  have  not 
made  him  tree,  theu  it  appears  affirmatively  on  the  record  that  he  is  not  a  citizen, 
and  consequently  his  suit  against  Said.brd  was  not  a  suit  bHween  ciiiz  us  of  diffe- 
reui  Slates,  and  the  court  had  no  authority  to  pa.ss  any  ju<lgni  nt  betweni  the  par- 
ties. The  suit  ouzht,  in  tiiis  view  of  it,  to  have  been  dismissed  by  the  Circuit  Court, 
and  its  judgm  nt  in  fivorof  Sandford  Is  erroneous,  and  rauslb  ■  reversed. 

It  is  true  that  th"  result  either  way,  by  dismiss  il  or  by  a  judgment  for  the  defen- 
dant, m.ikes  very  little,  if  any,  difference  in  a  pecuniary  or  personal  point  of  view 
to  either  party.  But  the  fact  that  the  result  would  be  very  ne.irly  th-  sani';  to  the  par- 
ties in  either  form  ofjudgmmt,  would  not  justify  this  court  in  sanctioning  an  error  in 
the  julgtn 'ut  whch  is  p.itent  on  the  re;ord,  and  which,  if  Siiuctioned,  miifiit  be 
dr.iw.i  into  precele.it,  and  lead  to  seriou- mischief  md  injustice  in  some  fiture  suit. 

We  proce.'d,  th-rerore,  to  inquire  whether  the  facts  relied  on  by  the  plaintiff  en- 
titled him  to  bis  freedom. 


32  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

The  case,  as  he  himself  states  it,  on  the  record  brought  here  by  his  writ  of  error, 
is  this : 

The  plaintiff  was  a  negro  slave,  belonping  to  Dr.  Emerson,  who  was  a  porgeon 
in  tlie  army  of  the  UniUd  St;itos.  In  the  year  1834,  be  look  the  pla'ntiff  from  the 
State  of  Mis^diiii  to  uie  military  post  at  Rock  ]>laii<l,  in  ihe  State  of  Illinois, 
and  iield  him  tliere  as  a  slave  unlii  the  month  of  April  or  May,  1830.  At  the  time 
last  meiitidnul,  said  Dr.  Emerson  removed  the  plainiitl'  fmni  said  military  post  at 
Rock  Island  to  the  military  post  at  Fort  Snelling.  situate  on  the  we<t  bank  of  the 
Mi>sis!-ippi  rivtr,  in  the  tcnitory  known  as  Upper  Louisiana,  acquired  by  the  Uni- 
ted Stales  of  France,  and  siiuate  norih  of  the  latitude  of  thirty-six  deixrees  ih'riy 
minutes  nortli,  and  nortii  of  the  State  of  Mi.'Souri.  Sa  d  Dr.  Emer-oa  held  the 
plaintiff  in  slavery  at  said  Fort  Snelling,  from  said  last-mentioned  date  until  the 
year  1838. 

In  the  ye;ir  18.35,  Harriet,  who  is  named  in  the  second  count  of  the  plaintiff's 
declarati<m.  wa-*  the  nej^ro  slave  of  Major  Taliaferro,  who  belonged  to  the  army  of 
the  United  States.  In  tliat  year.  1835,  .'■aid  Major  Taliaferro  took  sai<l  Il.irri't  to 
said  Fort  Snellins:,  a  military  post,  situated  .as  hereinbefore  slated,  and  kept  her  there 
as  a  slave  until  the  year  l!^3(),  and  then  sold  and  delivered  her  as  a  slave,  at  said 
Fort  Snelling,  unto  the  said  Dr.  Emerson  hereinbelore  named.  Said  Dr.  Emerson 
held  said  Harriet  in  slavery  at,  said  Fort  Snelling  until  the  year  1838. 

In  the  year  183G.  the  plaintiff  and  Harriet  intermarried,  at  Fort  Snelling.  with 
the  consent  of  Dr.  Em  rson,  who  then  claimed  to  be  their  master  and  owner.  Eliza 
and  Lizze,  named  in  the  third  count  of  the  plaintiffs  declaration,  are  the  fniit  of 
that  marriage.  Eliza  is  about  fourteen  years  old,  and  was  born  on  board  the  steam- 
boat Gips'-y,  north  of  the  norlh  line  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  upon  the  river 
Mis>issippi.  Lizzie  is  about  seven  years  old,  and  was  born  in  the  State  of  Missouri|^ 
at  the  military  pest  called  Jiffi-rson  Barracks. 

In  the  y(ar'l838,  said  Dr.  Emerson  removed  the  plaintiff  and  said  Harriet,  and 
their  said  daughter  Eliza,  from  said  Fort  Snelling  to  the  State  of  Mis-ouri,  where 
they  have  ever  s  nee  residi  d. 

Before  the  comtnencenieiit  of  this  suit,  said  Dr.  Emerson  sold  and  conveyed  the 
plaiiitilf.  and  Harrier,  Elizn,  and  Lizzie,  to  the  defendant,  as  slaves  and  the  defen- 
dant has  ever  since  claimed  to  hold  them,  and  each  of  them,  as  slaves. 

In  considering  this  part  of  the  controversy,  two  questions  arise:  1.  "Was  he, 
togethiT  with  his  family,  free  in  Missouri  by  reason  of  the  stay  in  the  territory  of 
the  United  States  hereinbefore  mentioned?  And,  2.  If  they  were  not,  is  Scott  him- 
self free  by  reason  of  his  removal  to  Rock  Island,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  stated 
in  the  above  adinis-ions? 

We  proceed  to  examine  the  first  question. 

The  act  of  Congress,  upon  which  the  plaintiff  relies,  declares  that  slavery  and  in- 
voluntary servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime,  shall  be  forever  i)r' hibited 
in  all  that  pirt  of  the  territory  ceded  l)y  France,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana, 
which  lies  north  of  Ihirly-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  norlh  latitude,  and  not  included 
within  the  limits  of  Missouri.  And  the  difficulty  which  mei  ts  us  at  the  threshold 
of  this  part  of  the  inquiry  is,  whether  Congress  was  authorised  to  pass  this  law 
under  any  of  the  powers  granted  to  it  by  the  Constitution  ;  for  if  the  authority  is 
not  given  by  that  instruinint,  it  is  the  duty  of  this  court  to  declare  it  void  and  in- 
operative, and  incapable  of  conferring  freedom  upon  any  one  who  is  held  as  a  slave 
under  the  laws  of  any  one  of  the  States. 

The  counsel  tor  the  plaintiff  has  laid  much  stress  upon  that  article  in  the  Consti- 
tution which  confers  on  Congress  the  power  "  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful 
rules  and  r(  gulations  ruspecling  the  terriloiy  or  other  projierty  belonging  to  the 
Uiiiied  Stales  ;  '  but,  in  the  jud-ment  of  the  court,  that  ])rovision  has  no  bearing 
on  the  presrnt  controversy,  and  the  power  there  given,  whatever  it  may  be.  is  con- 
fim  d,  and  was  intended  to  b-  conlined,  to  the  territnry  wh  ch  at  that  time  belonged 
to,  or  wasclained  by,  the  United  States,  and  was  within  their  boundaries  as  settled 
by  the  treaty  with  (Jreat  Britain,  and  can  have  no  intluence  ui)on  a  territory  after- 
wards acquired  from  a  foreign  Government.  It  was  a  special  pi  ovi^ion  for  a  known 
and  pariieular  territory,  and  to  meet  a  present  emergeney.  and  nothing  more. 

A  brief  summary  ot'lhe  hi>tory  of  the  times,  a-^  well  as  the  careful  and  measured 
terms  in  wliicli  the  article  is  framed,  will  show  the  correctness  of  this  proposition. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  from  the  commencement  of  the  Revoluntionary  war, 
serious  difficulties  existed  between  the  States,  in  relation  to  the  disposition  of  large 


THE  DEED  SCOTT  DECISION.  33 

and  unBcttlcd  trrritorii  s  which  were  ii)cliidi  d  in  the  chartered  liiBits  of  some  of  th« 
States.  And  simie  of  the  other  State-,  and  nrirc  e-p  c  ally  Miryland,  wliich  had 
no  niisitiU'd  liiiids,  insist' d  that  as  tlie  nnncciipicd  lands,  if  wrcsti'd  from  Greal 
Britain,  would  "\vi'  their  prest-rvaiioii  to  the  connnoii  purse  and  llio  common  sword, 
the  niMuoy  ari.iiig  fioni  llieni  ought  to  be  Hpplied  in  ju-i  jjropoition  anionj^  the  sev- 
eral States  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  war.  and  ou;;lit  noi  to  i>e  ajjpropriated  to 
the  use  of  the  Slate  in  who.-e  charterc  d  limit-  tliey  m  ght  hap|ie;i  t"  lie,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  other  State-.  Iiy  whose  comb  ned  ellorl-  and  common  expiiise  the 
territory  was  deleiideil  and  preserved  against  the  claim  of  the  I>r!ti>h  Guvernmfnt. 
These  difficulties  caused  nuich  uneasiness  during  the  war,  while  the  ii-sue  was  in 
some  degree  doubtlul,  anil  the  future  lionndar.i  s  of  the  United  Stales  yet  to  be 
delin"d  by  treaty,  it  we  acliieved  our  independence. 

The  majority  of  the  Congress  of  ilie  ('onfeih  ration  obviously  concurred  in  opin- 
ion with  the  Slate  of  Maryland,  and  de-ired  to  nblain  from  the  States  which  claimed 
it  a  cession  ot  this  lirritory.  in  order  that  Congress  might  raise  money  on  this 
security  to  cany  on  the  war.  This  :ip])ears  by  tiie  ^e^oluti()n  parsed  on  the  (ith  of 
September,  1780,  strongly  urging  th"  States  to  cede  thi  se  lands  to  the  United 
States,  both  foi  the  sake  of  peace  aiid  union  among  tliem-elve-,  and  to  maintain  the 
public  credit ;  and  this  was  toltowed  by  the  resolution  of  October  10th,  1780,  by 
which  Congress  pledged  itself,  that  it  the  lands  were  ceded,  as  reconimiMided  by 
the  resolution  above  mentioned,  they  should  be  d:^po?ed  of  for  ihe  common  benelit 
of  the  United  States,  and  be  settled  and  formed  into  distinct  republican  States,  which 
should  become  members  of  the  Federal  Union,  and  have  the  same  rights  of  sover- 
eignty, and  freedom,  and  independence,  as  other  States. 

But  these  difficulties  became  much  more  i-erious  after  peace  took  i)lace,  and  tho 
boundaries  of  the  United  States  were  established.  Every  State,  at  that  time,  felt 
severely  the  pressure  of  its  war  debt ;  but  in  Virginia,  and  some  other  States,  there 
were  large  territories  of  unsettled  lands,  thi;  sale  of  which  would  enable  them  to 
discharge  their  obligations  without  much  ineonveu'e  ice  ;  while  other  Slates,  which 
had  no  such  resource,  saw  before  tliem  many  years  of  h(  avy  and  burdensome  tax- 
ation; and  the  latter  insisted,  for  the  reasons  before  staled,  that  tlie-e  un-ettled  lands 
should  be  treated  as  the  common  properly  of  the  States,  and  the  proceeds  applied 
to  thi'ir  common  beneit. 

The  letters  from  the  statesmen  of  that  day  will  show  how  much  this  controversy 
occupied  their  thoughts,  and  the  dangeis  that  were  appreheneh'el  fre)m  it.  It  wag 
the  disturbing  element  of  the  time,  and  fears  wereent  'rtaiued  that  it  might  dissolve 
the  Confederation  by  which  the  Slates  were  then  united. 

These  fears  and  dangers  were,  howver,  at  onee  removed,  wlien  the  Slate  of 
Virginia,  in  1781.  voluntarily  ceded  to  the  United  States  the  mmense  tract  of  coun- 
try lying  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio,  and  which  was  wiihia  ihe  ackn  wledged  limits 
of  the  Slate.  The  only  object  of  the  State",  in  making  this  ce'ssion,  was  to  [nit  an 
end  to  the  threatening  and  exciting  contreivirsy,  and  to  enable  the  Cengress  of 
that  time  to  dispose  of  the  lands,  and  appropriate  the  prcceeds  as  a  common  fund 
for  the  common  benefit  of  the  States,  It  was  not  ceded  because  it  was  inconvenient 
to  the  State  to  h  iliand  govern  it.  nor  fmm  any  expectation  that  it  cejuld  be  better 
or  more  conveniently  governed  by  the'  United  Stat  s. 

The  example  of  Virginia  was  soon  afii'rwards  followe'd  by  other  States,  and,  at 
the  time  of  the  adetption  of  the  Constitution,  all  of  ihe  Staie-,  similaily  situated, 
had  ceded  their  unappreipriated  lands,  exeept  Noith  Candina  and  Ge'eirgia.  The 
main  object  lor  which  thesecessions  were  desired  and  mad',  w.>son  account  of  their 
money  value,  and  to  put  an  end  to  a  dangerous  ceintrover-y,  as  to  wlio  was  justly 
entitled  to  th<'  procee.'ds  when  the  lanel  should  l)e  sedd.  It  i<  necessary  to  bring  thia 
part  of  the  history  e>f  thea  •  ces-ions  thu-disiiiictly  into  view,  b-can.-eit  will  enable 
us  the  betti'r  to  comprehend  the  phraseology  of  the  article  in  the  Constitution,  bo 
often  referre  d  to  in  the  «rgume'iif. 

Undoubtedly  the-  powers  of  sovereignty  and  the  eminent  domain  were  ceded  with 
the  land.  This  was  essential,  in  orde  r  to  make;  it  « ttectual.  and  to  accomplish  its 
obje'cts.  But  it  must  be  remembered  tiiat.  at  that  tim',  thi  re  was  nei  Ge)vernment 
of  the'  United  States  in  existence  with  ennm"iiited  and  1  luiied  |)e>we'rs ;  what  was 
then  calle'dthe  United  Siales,  were  thlrt 'en  a  p  irate,  sove-ieign,  inehpindent  States, 
which  had  ente:ed  into  a  leagu"  or  confed.  ration  f  r  their  nuitual  protection  and 
advantage,  and  th-  Congress  of  the  Uiiii<  d  States  was  compe)sed  ot  the  repiesentar 
lives  of  these  separate  tovercignlieB,  meeting  together,  us  equals,  to  discuss  and 


S4  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

drcide  on  certain  Tticamres  which  the  Statos,  by  the  Articli'S  of  Confed'Tation,  had 
aprc'd  to  Mibniit  to  their  decis  oil.  But  tliis  Coiif<derati<ni  had  none  ot  iho  aitri- 
bntfsol  sovereignty  in  logi>lative,  executive,  or  judicial  pnwer.  It  \va.«  liltl'-  more 
th  m  ii  congress  of  araliassadors.  iimhnrlsed  to  represent  sepiirate  nations,  in  maittrs 
in  which  they  had  a  common  c "nceni. 

It  was  tills  congress  th.it  accepted  the  c^ssion  from  Vircinia.  They  had  no  power 
to  accept  it  under  the  Articles  ol  Confi'dirution.  But  ihey  liad  an  uiidoulit«(l  ri;;ht, 
as  independent  soverigiities.  to  accept  any  cession  of  territory  lor  tiieir  common 
l»e:iefit,  w  hicli  all  of  them  absented  to  ;  a;id  it  is  equally  cb  ar.  that  as  their  common 
pniperty,  and  having  no  sup  rior  to  control  them,  they  had  the  right  to  exerci-e  ab- 
solute dominion  over  it,  subject  only  to  the  restriciiins  which  \'irginia  had  imposed 
in  her  act  of  cession.  There  was,  as  we  have  said,  no  Governm 'iii  of  ihe  Un  ted 
States  then  in  existence  with  special  eiuim'*rat«d  and  limited  powers.  The  terri- 
tory l)elonged  to  sovereignties,  who,  sutijcct  to  the  limitations  above  menii>ned, 
had  a  riglit  to  establish  any  form  of  Govci  nmeut  they  pleased,  by  comp;»ct  or  treaty 
anion -f  them-ehe-,  and  to  regulate  rights  of  per.-on  and  rights  of  property  in  the 
ten  itory,  as  th-y  ni'ght  deem  proper.  It  \va«  by  a  Congress,  representing  tiie  author- 
ity of  these  several  and  srpiirate  sovereignti' 8,  and  acting  under  their  autnoiiiy 
aid  command  (  but  not  from  any  authority  d<  rived  from  the  Articles  of  Contedein- 
tioi,)  that  the  instrument  usually  called  the  ordinance  of  1787  was  adopted;  ngu- 
latiiig  in  much  detiil  the  principles  and  the  laws  by  which  this  territory  should  be 
governed;  and  among  otiier  i)iovisions,  slavery  is  prohibited  in  it.  We  do  not  ques- 
tioi  tlie  power  of  the  States,  by  a^ireement  among  themselves,  to  pass  this  ordin- 
ance, nor  its  obligatory  forceiu  the  territory,  while  the  confederation  or  league  of  the 
States  in  their  separate  sovereign  character  continued  to  exist. 

This  W.IS  the  state  of  things  when  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  form- 
ed. The  territory  ceded  by  Virginia  I  elonged  to  the  several  confederated  States  as 
common  prop'  rty.  and  they  iuuruiiited  in  establishing  in  it  a  system  of  government 
and  jurisprudence,  in  order  to  prepaie  it  for  admission  as  States,  according  to  the 
ter;  s  of  the  cession.  They  weie  about  to  d'ssolve  this  federative  Union,  and  to  .=ur- 
render  a  portion  of  th -ir  indep  ndent  sovereignty  to  a  new  Government,  which,  for 
certain  purposes,  would  make  the  people  of  the  several  States  one  people,  and  wliich 
was  to  be  supreme  and  eontiolling  wi'hin  its  sphere  of  action  throughout  the  United 
States;  but  this  Government  was  to  be  carefully  limited  in  its  powers,  and  to  exer- 
cisi'  no  authority  b-yond  those  expn  s«ly  granted  by  the  Constitution,  or  necessarily 
to  be  iinp'i'd' from  the  language  of  the  in-trument,  and  the  objects  it  was 
intended  lo  accomplish;  and  as  this  league  of  States  would,  upon  the  adoption  of 
the  new  Government,  cea<e  to  have  any  power  over  the  territory,  and  the  ordinance 
they  had  agreed  upon  be  incapable  of  execution  and  a  mere  nullity,  it  was  obvious 
that  some  provision  was  necessary  lo  give  the  new  Government  sufficient  power  to 
en  ible  it  to  carry  into  .  ffect  the  objects  for  which  it  was  c  ded.  and  the  compacts 
and  agreements  which  the  Sates  had  made  with  each  other  in  the  e.X'  rc!.«e  of  their 
po.vers  of  sovereignty,  it  was  uece<s.ary  that  the  lands  should  be  sold  to  pay  the 
war  debt;  thit  a  Government  and  sy-:tem  ot  jurisprudence  sliould  be  maintaiu'd  in 
it.  to  protect  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  should  migrate  to  the  territory, 
in  their  rights  of  person  and  of  property.  It  was  also  necessary  that  the  new  Gov- 
ernment, about  to  be  adopted,  should  be  authorized  to  maintain  Ihe  claim  of  the 
United  Slates  to  the  unappropriated  laud'^  in  North  Carolina  and  Georgia,  which  had 
not  then  l)e(!n  cedi-d.  but  the  cession  of  which  was  contidently  anticipated  upon 
Bome  terms  that  would  be  arranged  between  the  G'-neral  Government  and  these 
tw)  States.  And.  moreover,  there  were  many  articles  of  value  besides  this  pro- 
perty in  land  such  a:  arm-*,  military  stores,  munitions,  and  ships  of  war,  which 
W'le  the  c  iminoii  prop -rty  of  the  Slate-",  when  acting  in  their  independe  it  charac- 
ters as  confed  nates,  which  neiilier  th?  new  Government  nor  anyone  else  would 
have  a  right  to  take  |)os<es<iou  of.  or  control,  without  authority  Vrom  tiiem;  and  it 
was  to  place  these  things  under  the  guardianship  and  protection  of  Ihe  new  Govern- 
m(  nt,  atid  to  clothe  it  with  the  necessary  powers,  tiiat  the  clause  was  inserted  in  the 
Constitution  which  gives  Congress  ihepower  "  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  ne- dfnl 
rnl  s  and  ie,'uiatioas  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the 
Un  ted  States."  It  was  intended  f  >r  a  specific  purpose,  to  provide  for  tlie  things 
we  have  mentioned.  It  was  to  transfer  to  the  new  Government  tlie  property  then 
held  in  common  bv  the  Sta'es,  and  to  give  to  that  Government  power  to  apjdy  it  to 
the  object-  ftir  which  it  had  b "en  destined  by  mutual  agreement  among  the  Statis 
before  their  le.igae  was  dissolved.    It  applied  only  to  the  property  which  the  States 


THE  URED  SCOTT  DECISION.  S5 

held  in  common  at  that  time,  and  has  no  reference  whatever  to  any  territory  or 
other  property  which  the  ntw  sovereignly  might  afterwards  itself  acfiuire. 

The  language  us 'd  in  the  clausi',  ihe  arraiigem>,'nt  and  conibiiiatiou  of  tlie  powers, 
and  tht;  som'-what  unu.«nal  phraseology  it  usis,  when  it  speaiisof  the  political  power 
to  be  eX'  rciscd  in  the  govirnnieiit  of  the  territory,  all  indicate  tlie  di.-ign  and  mein- 
ing  of  the  clause  to  l>e  such  &<  we  have  nien tinned.  It  does  not  speak  of  any  ter- 
ritory, nor  ot  Terri  orics,  but  uses  langu;>ge  which,  according  to  its  legitimate  mean- 
ing, paiuts  to  a  partieul.ir  thing.  The  power  is  given  in  relation  only  to  the 
territory  of  the  United  States — that  if,  to  a  territory  then  in  existenc,  and  then 
known  or  claimed  as  the  territory  of  the  United  States.  It  begins  its  enumeration 
of  powers  by  that  of  di-posing,  in  other  words,  making  sale  of  the  hinds  or  raising 
money  fn)m  them,  whicii.  as  we  have  already  said,  was  the  main  olj-ct  of  the  ces- 
sion, and  which  is  accordingly  the  first  th^ng  provided  for  in  the  article.  It  th'U 
gives  the  power  which  was  necessarily  associated  with  the  disposition  and  sale  of 
the  lands — tliat  is.  the  power  of  making  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territorv.  And  whatever  construction  may  now  be  given  to  th-^se  words  evi-ry  one, 
we  think,  must  admit  that  they  ar-'  not. the  words  usually  employed  hy  state-men 
in  giving  supreme  power  of  legislation.  They  are  certainly  very  u:ilike  the  words 
used  in  the  power  granted  to  legislate  over  territory  which  the  new  Gov  rnm'  nt 
might  afterwards  ii.self  obtain  by  ces-ion  from  a  State,  either  for  its  sent  of  Govern- 
ment, or  for  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock  yards,  and  other  needful  buildings. 

And  the  same  power  of  making  n.'ed'ul  rules  respecting  the  teriitory  is,  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  language,  applied  to  the  nther  property  belonging  to  the  United 
States — associating  the  power  over  the  territory  in  this  respect  with  the  power  over 
movabl*'  or  per-onal  prop"rty — that  is,  the  ships,  arms,  and  munitions  ot  war,  which 
thna  belonged  in  common  to  the  State  sovereignties.  And  it  will  liardly  be  s  lid, 
thai  this  power,  in  r'  lalion  to  the  last-mentioned  objects,  was  deemed  necessary  to 
be  thus  sp  ci-tUy  given  to  the  new  Government,  in  order  to  authorize  it  to  make 
needful  rules  and  regulations  respectiig  the  ships  it  might  itself  buld.  or  arms  and 
muniti  )ns  of  war  it  m  ghl  itself  ma'mracture  or  provide  f^or  the  i)uljlic  s  ivic'. 

No  one.  it  is  believed,  would  think  a  moment  of  deriving  the  power  of  Congress  to 
make  needful  rules  and  regulations  in  relation  to  property  ot  this  ki.d  from  this 
clau.«e  of  the  Constitution.  Nor  can  it,  upon  any  fair  cons  ruction,  be  ap|ilied  to 
any  prop  'rty,  Imt  that  which  the  new  Government  was  about  to  receive  from  the 
coiifederated  States.  And  if  this  Ije  true  as  to  this  property,  it  mu-^t  be  equally 
true  anl  limited  as  to  the  territory,  which  is  so  carefully  and  precisely  coutih  d 
with  it — and  like  it  ref  rred  to  as  property  in  the  power  granted.  'iJie  concluding 
words  of  the  clau.=e  appear  to  render  this  construction  irresistilde ;  for,  after  the 
provisions  we  have  mentioned,  it  jnoeeeds  to  say,  "  that  nothing  in  the  Constitution 
shall  be  so  cotistrued  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  par- 
ticular State.'' 

Now.  as  we  have  before  sa'd,  all  of  the  States,  except  North  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
had  made  the  C'ssion  b"fore  the  Ci)nstiiutir)ii  was  adopted,  according  to  the  reso- 
lution of  Congress  of  October  10.  1780.  The  claims  of  other  States,  tl  at  the  uiiap- 
proi)riated  lands  in  these  two  Slates  should  be  applied  to  the  comirio  i  lieu'lit,  in 
like  manner,  was  still  insisted  on,  but  refused  by  the  States  And  this  iniinber  of 
the  clause  in  que-fon  evid  iitly  aiipli  s  to  them,  and  can  apply  to  noliniigelse.  It 
was  to  exclude  the  conclu-ion  that  either  party,  by  ad^  pting  the  Constitution,  would 
surrender  what  thy  d-enied  their  rights.  And  when  tlie  latter  provision  relates  so 
obviously  to  the  nipappropriat'<l  lands  not  yet  ceded  Ijy  the  States,  and  t!ie  first 
clause  makes  provis  o:i  fur  those  then  actually  ceded,  it  is  impossibh;,  by  any  just 
rule  of  construction,  to  make  the  lir>t  provision  ge.ieral,  and  extend  to  all  terri- 
tories, wh  ch  the  Federal  Governme  it  might  iu  any  way  afterwanis  acquire,  when 
the  latt  r  i-  plainly  and  unequivocally  confined  to  a  particular  frritory;  which  was 
a  part  of  th  ■  same  controversy,  and  involved  in  the  same  dispute,  aid  depended 
u()on  llie  same  princph-s.  The  union  of  the  two  provisions  in  Ihe  same  clause 
rIiows  that  they  wi-re  kinlnd  subjects;  and  that  the-  whole  clause  is  lo.'al,  and  r- 
lates  only  to  finds,  within  the  limits  ot  the  United  States,  wliich  had  1)  en  jr  then 
were  c'almed  by  a  Sate;  and  that  no  other  territory  was  in  the  mind  of  the  fra- 
mers  of  th^;  Constitution,  or  int'^nded  to  be  embrac  d  in  it.  Upm  any  other  coi- 
ftruction  it  would  be  impossible  10  account  for  the  insertion  of  the  last  provision  in 
the  place  where  it  is  found,  or  to  comprehend  why,  or  for  what  object,  it  was  asso- 
ciated with  theprev'ous  provision. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  couhrmed  by  the  manner  in  which  the  present  Govera 


36  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

meitof  th'^  Utiit^'d  Still's  d!alt  with  the  fuhj -ct  as  sooi  as  it  caim  int>  oxUtenco. 
It  mn<t  be  Imrni;  n  miml  that  t'le  simo  Stat-s  that  lormiil  the  Ooilelention  also 
forme  1  and  adopted  thj  njvr  Goverum r.d,  to  which  so  large  a  po-tion  of  ihcir  for- 
m  T  3  .VL-r.-iirn  p  »w  ts  were  surr.'iidered.  It  mast  als  »  be  borni  in  mind  that  all  of 
th  ;se  -a:ii ;  Soa  es  which  hid  Lhen  ratiti  -d  the  n;w  Con-titirim  were  repn'SiiitiHl  in 
thi!  C  ingress  which  parsed  the  first  law  tor  the  g  )vernm 'iit  of  t:ii-<  territory;  and 
many  of  th"  in.'inbers  of  tliat  legislalii'e  body  had  b«en  deputies  fr  "-n  the  Sates 
under  the  C  mfederaion— had  united  in  adopting  th;  ordinance  of  1787,  and  assHt- 
ed  i  1  form!  ig  the  no.v  Govenim  'nt  under  which  they  were  ihe;i  aoiing,  and  who-e 
pow  i"s  ihey  were  then  eXTcisiiig.  And  it  is  obvious  fro  n  the  law  they  passed  to 
cirry  i  ito  eff  ct  t'l"  prnciples  and  provision-"  of  the  ord'naic?.  that  they  regard 'd 
it  as  the  act  of  the  Stat  js  done  in  the  ex  -rcise  of  their  legitim  He  powers  at  the  lim?. 
Th  !  iiew(xo\'ernme  li  took  the  territory  as  itf  luml  it.  and  in  the  cmdition  in  wlii-h 
it  was'  tr msferred,  and  did  not  attempt  to  undo  anything  that  h  id  b  jen  done.  And, 
am  y.ig  th  ■  e  irHe't  laws  pa--<ed  und'r  th;  new  Gov.'rnm;nt,  i-^  one  r-'viving  the  or- 
dinance of  1787,  which  had  b -com;  inoperative  and  a  nullity  upon  the  adoption  of 
the  Co.istitution.  This  la.v  introduces  n?  new  form  or  principlei  for  its  gnvern- 
m  nt,  but  reciter,  in  th' preamble,  tliat  it  is  pisn-d  in  order  that  this  ordinance 
may  continue  to  have  full  eflfect,  and  proceeds  to  maite  only  those  rules  a  id  ro?nla- 
tions  wiiich  were  needful  to  adapt  it  to  the  new  Government,  into  whose  hands  the 
power  had  fallen.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  this  Congress  regirde  I  the  purposes 
to  wh  ch  thi;  land  in  this  Territory  was  to  be  anpli  'd,  and  the  form  of  governm:;  it 
and  princ'ples  oljurspru lence  which  were  to  prevail  there,  while  it  remained  in 
the  Territorial  State,  as  already  determined  on  by  the  States  when  th  -y  had  full 
p  )wer  a  id  right  to  make  the  d'cision;  and  that  the  new  Governm -nt,  having  re- 
ceived it  in  this  conditiim,  ouglit  to  carry  substantially  into  eff  ct  the  plans  and 
princ'pl'S  which  had  bien  previously  adopted  by  the  ritate%and  which,  no  doubt, 
the  States  anticipated  when  they  surrend-red  their  power  to  the  uew  Governm'nt. 
And  if  w  '  regard  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  as  pointing  to  this  TeiTitory,  with  a 
Territorial  Governmentalready  established  in  it,  which  had  been  ceded  to  the  States 
for  tlie  purposes  hereinbefore  mentioned — every  word  in  it  is  perfectly  appropriate 
and  easily  understood,  and  the  provisions  it  contains  are  in  p 'rtect  harmony  with 
th  '  obj  cts  f)r  which  it  was  cede  1,  and  with  thecondi;ion  of  its  governm  nit  iis  a  Ter- 
ritory at  t  le  t  ra '.  We  can,  then,  easily  account  for  the  manner  in  wnich  the  firet 
Co  igr  3-i  1  -gislat  d  on  the  subject — and  can  also  understand  why  this  power  over 
th  '  territory  wa^  associated  ii  the  same  clause  witli  the  otiier  property  of  the  United 
Slates,  and  subjected  to  the  like  power  of  making  needful  rules  and  regulations. 
But  if  the  clause  is  construed  in  the  expanded  sense  contended  for,  so  as  to  embrace 
any  territory  acquired  fr^m  a  foreign  nation  by  the  present  Government,  and  to  give 
it  in  such  territory  a  di-spnt'c  and  unlimited  power  over  persons  and  jiroperty,  such 
as  th'!  conf'd 'rated  States  might  exercise  in  their  common  prop;ity,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  account  for  the  phra-^eology  used,  when  co:np\red  with  other  grants  of 
power — an  I  also  for  its  association  with  the  other  provisions  in  the  same  clause. 

The  Co  istitution  has  always  been  remarkable  for  the  felicity  of  its  arrangement 
of  d  ffji-'Uit  subjects,  and  the  perspicuity  and  appropriateness  of  the  language  it 
us 's.  But  if  this  clause  is  construed  to  extend  to  territory  acquired  by  th ;  present 
Gov -rnm  nt  from  a  fi)reign  nation,  outside  of  the  limits  of  any  charter  from  the 
British  Government  to  a  colony,  it  wouM  be  ditficult  to  say,  why  it  was  deemed 
necessary  to  give  the  G  )vernm  -nt  the  power  to  sell  any  vacant  lands  belonging  to 
the  soveieignty  wh  ch  m'ght  be  found  within  it;  and  if  this  was  u'cs^ary,  wiiv  the 
grant  of  ihs  p.iwer  sliould  precede  the  power  to  legislate  over  it  and  establish  a 
Governme  it  tlnTe  ;  and  st  11  more  dilTicult  to  say.  why  it  was  deemed  n'cessary  .so 
specially  and  particularly  ti  grant  the  power  to  makeiieedlul  rules  and  regulations 
in  relation  to  any  p  u's  )nal  or  movable  property  it  might  acquire  there.  For  the 
words,  niher  property,  neco-sarily.  by  every  known  rule  of  interpretation,  must  mean 
properly  of  a  diff-'ruit  d 'Sjriptio  i  from  territory  or  land.  And  the  dilUculty 
would  periiaps  be  insurmountable  in  endeavoring  to  account  for  tlie  listm'inbor  of 
the  sente  ice,  wh  ch  provides  that  '  iiot!ii)ig  in  this  Constitution  shall  bj  so  con- 
Birued  iis  to  pr  jndice  any  claims  of  the  United  States  or  any  particular  Stite." 
or  to  say  how  any  particular  .Stat"  could  have  claim-!  in  or  to  a  territory  ceded  bj 
a  foreign  Government,  or  to  account  for  associating  this  providou  with  the  prece- 
ding provisinns  of  the  clause,  wit  i  wliich  it  would  app  >ar  to  have  no  connectioii. 

The  words  "  needful  rules  and  regulations  "  would  seem,  also,  to  have  been  cau- 
tiousl/  u8Jd  for  some  deiiaite  object.    Thej  are  not  the  worda  usually  employed  bj 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  81 

8^at'i'•n"Il.  wh>n  I'loy  m;.i!i  to  g  ve  tlie  po.ver.s  ot  s iVL-r./urnty,  or  lo  eotvbli.ili  a 
Gov  .'in  iKvit.  i.r  to  aut'iorise  its  ustablishine  it.  Tbiia.  in  ilie  \i\v  lo  re:iew  and  koop 
alive  'hi!  or  liiiiace  of  1787,  luid  to  re-ijsta'>ii<li  the  Gov(;r  iiiitjut,  the  title  of  'lie 
law  is  :  "'An  uci  to  provide  lor  the  goveinineiit  of  the  territory  northwi'st  of  the 
river  Ohio."  Airl  in  tlie  C  >iistilut;oa,  when  granting  the  power  to  legislate  over 
til-  lenilory  lii.it  in  ly  be  selecie.l  lor  the  seal  oi  Governineat  indepe.idontiy  of  a 
Stile,  ii  d.M'S  n  >t  .-ay  Cjogre  s  s-h  ill  have  p  >wer  ••  lo  make  all  neediul  rules  and 
reguluii.ias  re-pctii.;?  ih;  lerr.tory  ;"  but  it  d -clarcs  lh.it  "C^)ngre.-8  shall  have 
pover  to  exero.se  oxjLisive  l.gidation  in  all  cases  \vh.it~oever  over  .such  District 
(  no!  cxjeeJin,'  ton  miles  square  )  as  may,  by  c  'ssioii  of  partcular  Slaies  and  the 
aoo  ptuioe  oi  Con^cress.  bjc  )m.;  ihi  seal  of  tlie  Gover.imeat  of  the  Uiiit.;d  States. 

The  word-i  '•  rules  and  re,j;ulati->ns"  are  usually  employed  in  the  Constitution  in 
spealc  n^  of  some  p.irticular  sp'cilied  p  >wer  which  it  means  to  confer  on  the  Gov- 
ernm  nC.  a  id  not,  as  we  have  .-e^n,  wh 'U  gr.inting  general  powers  of  k'gi>latioa. 
As  fore.ximple,  in  th-  pirticular  pow.n-  to  0  n^res-s  "lo  make  rule.-,  tor  the  govern- 
ra-nl  anl  rjgaiitiun  of  t\\i  land  and  naval  forces,  or  ih:  particular  and  sp.citic 
p)wer  I.)  ivg  ilale  com  n  Tc;  ;•'  '•  to  esiablis'i  an  uniform  rtde  of  naturalization;" 
'toe  tin  mo  ley  and  re^uLUe  ih3  value  thjreof."  And  loconslru;  the  words  of 
whicii  we  are  sp  -ak  n,'  as  a  gmjral  and  unlimit;d  grant  of  sovereignty  over  terri- 
tories whicj  til  J  Govjrnm  nt  m  ght  afterwards  acquire,  is  to  use  tliem  in  a  sense  and 
fur  a  pup  >se  tor  walch  th  y  were  not  us'  d  in  any  other  part  of  the  instrument. 
Bat  if  c  ):ili.iel  Id  a  part  cul.ir  Territory,  in  which  a  Government  and  laws  had  al- 
rea  ly  'leen  e-t  ibllshed,  but  which  would  require  some  alterations  to  adapt  it  to  the 
n  w  G.ver.immt,  the  words  are  peculiarly  applicable  and  appropriate  lor  that 
purpose.  . 

The  necessity  of  fiis  special  providon  in  relitioa  to  property  an  1  the  rights  or 
propjrty  h-id  in  comno.i  bv  the  conL'der.ite  1  States,  is  illustrated  by  the  first 
claus !  of  th;  si.Kih  article,  this  clause  provides  that  "all  debts,  contracts,  and  en- 
gaicem;  Its  eni  Ted  into  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be  as  valid  a- 
gainst  Ih :  Unit  ;d  Sta;euiiider  this  Governm  ;at  as  under  the  Confederation."  Thia 
provisioi.  1  ke  tli  -one  und-rconsiderat  o  i,  was  indispensable  if  the  new  Cun.stitution 
w,is  alopt  d  Th;  new  Governm jnt  was  not  a  m-re  change  in  a  dynasty,  or  in  a 
form  of  g  iveriin  nt,  leaving  ihe  nation  or  sovereig.ity  the  same,  and  clotned  with 
all  the  rigits.  an  I  bound  by  all  the  obligations  of  the  preceding  one.  But,  when 
the  present  Un  te  I  States  came  into  exisie.iCi  und  r  the  new  Government,  it  was  a 
new  p  ditical  i>ody,  a  new  natio  i,  tiien  tor  the  tirst  time  taking  its  place  in  the  fami- 
ly of  nitio. is.  It  to>k  uothing  by  succesdon  from  the  Confederation.  It  had  no 
rigiit,  as  its  suc:;essor,  to  a  ly  property  or  rights  o!  prop  rty  which  it  had  acquired, 
a:id  was  mil  lia'ole  for  a  ly  of  its  obligat  ons.  It  w.is  evidently  viewed  in  this  light 
by  t!ie  fra  ners  of  tlie  Con>titu'io:i.  And  as  the  several  States  would  ceaseto  exist 
i,i  their  former  c  mf-d  rated  character  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  and 
could  not,  in  thai,  character,  again  assemble  tog itlier,  special  provisions  were  indis- 
peisible  to  trans  er  to  the  new  Government  the  pmpjrty  and  rights  which  at  that 
time  th  -y  heid  in  com;non;  and  at  the  same  time  to  authorize  it  lo  lay  la.ves  and 
apitropriat'  mo  i-y  to  pav  the  common  debt  which  they  had  contracted;  and  this 
power  could  n.iiy  be  given  to  it  by  sped  il  provisions  in  the  Constiiut:on.  The 
clause  il  lelat  o  i  to  the  territory  an  I  other  properly  of  the  United  States  provided 
fur  die  fir.st.  an  1  the  clause  last  quoUd  provides  for  the  other.  They  have  no  con- 
nection with  the  general  powers  and  rights  of  sovereignty  delegated  to  the  new 
Gov  rnm  nt,  and  can  neitiier  e.ilarg;  nor  dimnish  them.  They  were  inserted  to 
me  jl  a  pre.sent  em  Tgjiicy,  and  not  lo  regulate  its  powers  as  a  Government. 

Indeed,  a  simi  ar  provision  wa-  deemed  neces-ary,  in  relation  to  treaties  made  by 
the  Coifed  ral.o.i  ;  aid  when  in  the  cla  ise  next  succeeding  the  one  of  which  we 
have  last  >p  .k.'i,  it  is  declared  that  treaties  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
care  is  lake  i  to  include,  by  expre.-s  words,  tie  Ireaiies  made  by  the  confederated 
States.  The  language  is :  "  and  all  treaties  mid ',  or  which  shall  be  made,  under 
the  authority  of  the  United  States,  s  lall  b ;  the  supreme  law  of  the  land." 

Whelh  r.  ih;reloiv,  We  take  the  parte  ilar  clan-e  in  quesiion,  by  it-elf,  or  in  con- 
nection wit  i  ilie  o  h;r  provoions  ofihj  Consiiiution,  we  think  it  clear,  that  it  applies 
only  to  liie  pirticular  territory  of  which  we  have  spoken,  and  cannot,  by  any  just 
rule  of  in  erpr^titi-n,  be 'Xtnled  lo  territory  which  the  new  Governmeat  might 
aflerw.irds  ooia  n  tro  n  a  Ibreig.i  nation,  ConswiUL-ntly,  the  power  which  Congioss 
may  have  law.ull/  exjrcisel  in  this  Territory,  waile  it  remained  under  a  Territorial 
Government,  and  which  may  have  been  sanctioned  by  judicial  decision,  can  luratah 


38  TIIR  DRKD  SCDTT  DECISION. 

11' >  justification  nnl  no  !\rj;iiin"nt  to  support  a  similar  ox'^mis?  of  power  over  f^ni- 
tory  iil'tirwiird-*  :\c(iuireil  by  the  Fed'T.il  Gov.-r  inioiit.  SVc  put  aside,  tli  r'loro,. 
aiiynrguineiit,  drawn  from  prect-dents,  shoving  tlw  cx'-  nt  nf  Hil-  po  vi-r  which  the 
Ge;ior"l  (lov.Tnineiit  ex.rciscd  over  elaviiy  ia  this  Territory,  as  altogether  iiiap- 
plicublo  to  the  c.ise  before  us. 

But  the  case  <if  the  American  and  Oc^an  In-urance  Companifs  v.  C  inter  (1  Pet., 
511)  lias  been  quoted  usestablshiiig  a  ditTi-rent  coiistnieiio  i  of  thi-*  ciiiu-e  of  tho 
Coustituiion.  Th  re  is.  liowcver,  not  the  sli^'^htesi  conflic-  b  •tw.'eii  the  op  nion  now 
giveu  and  t':ie  one  ref.rred  to;  and  it  is  only  by  taking  a  single  pentencc  out  of  the 
latter  and  s  parating  it  from  the  context,  tliiiteven  an  appearanc  of  conflict  cm  be 
shown.  We  iie'd  not  comment  on  pucIi  a  mode  of  expound'Ug  an  opinion  of  the 
court.  Ind  ed  it  most  commonly  misrepresents  instead  of  expound  n-^  v.  And  tiiig 
is  fully  exemplilied  iu  the  case  referred  to,  wiiere.  if  one  sent  'nee  is  taken  by  itself, 
the  oplniiin  would  appear  to  be  in  direct  coiflict  with  that  now  trivi-n:  but  the 
words  which  immediately  f  iU(-w  that  seutence  ^bow  tlint  the  court  did  not  mean  to 
dec  de  tin;  point,  but  merely  affirmed  the  power  of  Congreas  to  establish  a  Govern- 
ment in  the  Territory,  le.iving  it  an  op  n  question,  whether  that  power  was  derived 
from  this  clau^e  iu  the  Constitution,  or  was  to  be  nect3«arily  inferred  from  a  ])Owcr 
to  acquire  territory  liy  cession  from  a  foreign  Govenunent.  The-  opinion  on  this 
part  of  the  case  is  phort.  and  we  give  the  whole  of  it  to  show  how  well  the  selection 
of  a  single  sentence  is  calculated  to  mi-lead 

The  passage  referred  to  is  in  page  542,  in  which  the  court,  in  speaking  of  the 
power  of  Congress  to  establish  a  Territorial  Government  in  Florida  until  it  should 
become  a  State,  uses  the  f  dlowing  language  : 

"  In  the  mean  time  Florida  continues  to  be  a  Territory  of  the  United  States,  gov- 
erned by  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  whicli  empowers  Con.uress  to  make'  all 
medl'ul  rules  and  resulalious  respecting  the  territory  or  other  prop-rty  of  the  United 
States.  Perhaps  the  power  of  eoviruing  a  Territory  belonging  lo  the  United  States, 
which  has  not,  l)y  becoming  a  State,  Mcquind  the  meais  oT  self  government,  may 
re.sult.  necissarily,  from  the  facts  that  it  is  not  within  the  jurisdiotinn  of  any  partic- 
ular State,  and  is  witliiu  the  power  and  juri^dict'on  of  the  United  S  atcs.  The  right 
to  govern  may  be  the  ineviialde  consequence  of  tlie  right  to  aocpiire  territory. 
Whichever  may  be  the  source  from  which  the  power  is  dcriveii,  the  possession  oj  it  it 
unquestionable^'' 

ll  is  thus  clear,  from  the  whole  opinion  on  this  point,  that  the  court  did  not  tnean 
to  decide  whether  tlie  power  was  d  Tivel  from  t!ie  clause  iu  the  Constitution,  or  was 
the  nece-sary  consequence  of  the  right  to  acquire.  They  do  decide  t'lat  th  •  power 
in  Con"-rcss  is  utique?tionabIe,  and  in  this  we  entirely  concur,  a  id  n  nhing  will  be 
found  Ml  this  opinion  to  the  contrary.  The  power  stands  tirmly  on  the  latter  alter- 
native put  hy  the  court — that  is,  as  "/Ae  inevitable  consequence  of  the  right  to  acquire 
territory.'' 

And  what  still  more  cV-arly  demonstrates  that  the  eonrt  d'd  not  mean  to  d'-ctde 
the  question,  but  leave  it  open  for  future  consid  ration,  is  the  fict  that  the  case  w;\3 
decided  in  the  Circuit  Court  by  Mr.  Ju^ic  •  John-on.  and  his  doc  sion  was  affirmed 
by  the  Supreme  Court.  His  opinion  at  tho  circuit  is  given  in  full  in  a  note  to  the 
case,  ai:d  in  that  opinion  he  states,  in  explicit  term-,  that  the  clause  of  t!ie  Cousti- 
tulicin  applies  only  to  the  territory  then  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  and  not 
to  Florida,  which  had  been  acquired  liy  cession  from  Spa'n.  This  pari  othisopin  on 
will  be  found  in  the  note  in  page  517  of  the  rep  )rt.  But  he  does  no!  dissent  from  (ho 
opinion  of  the  .Supreme  Court;  thereby  siiowing  that,  in  his  judgment,  as  well  as  tliat 
of  the  court,  the  case  before  them  did  not  call  for  adee'sion  on  that  particular  point, 
and  the  court  al  stained  from  deciding  it.  And  in  a  part  of  its  opiiuon  subsequent 
to  the  passage  we  hav(!  quoted,  wiierc  'ho  court  speak  of  the  legislative  power  of 
Ccmgress  iu^Floiida.  they  still  speuk  w  r.h  the  pame  reserve.  And  in  page  546, 
epcakin\'  of  the  jiower  of  Congress  lo  autnorise  the  Territoral  Legislature  to  estalv 
lish  courts  tlx're,  the  court  say:  "They  are  legislative  courts,  created  in  virtue  of 
Ih !  ge  leral  right  of  sovereignty  whieli  oxi-ts  in  the  (^>vernme:it,  or  in  virtue  of 
that  clause  whkih  <  nibles  Congress  to  m  ike  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respec- 
ting tht!  territory  beh)ngitig  to  th-'  United  .States.' 

It  has  been  .-ai  1  that  the  construction  given  to  tliis  clause  is  new,  and  now  for  the 
first  lime  brou-ht  forward.  Tlie  ease  of  which  we  are  sp  -aking.  and  which  has 
been  ^0  much  dis.'n.-sed.  show-  that  the  fict  is  otherwi-e.  It  shows  that  precisi>ly 
the  same  qii  stioii  came  before  Mr.  Justice  Johnson,  at  his  circuit,  thirty  years 
a-ro— waf  lully  cousidered  by  him,  and  the  same  coustruction  giVen  to  the  clause 


THE  DEED  SCOTT  DECISION.  39 

in  the  ConPtitution  which  is  now  given  by  this  court.  And  tlint  npon  an  appeal 
from  his  dtclsloa  the  game  question  was  brouiiht  l)-'for'^  this  CDUrt,  but  wis  nut 
decided  because  a  deci.-i(in  upon  it  wa-;  not  minired  by  the  case  before  the  court. 
There  is  a;iothcr  sentence  in  the  opinio  i  whicli  h;is  been  commented  on,  which 
even  in  a  siill  more  siriiiing  manner  shows  how  one  may  mislead  or  be  misled  by 
taking  out  a  single  seuteuoe  from  the  op'n  o;i  uf  a  court,  and  leaving  ont  of  view 
whut  precedis  and  follows.  It  is  in  pag,- 5-i(J,  near  the  close  of  tlie  0|>iiiion,  in 
which  the  ccmrt  say:  '•  In  legislating  lor  them,'"  (  the  tcrritoriis  of  tlie  United 
States,)  '■  Congress  exercises  the  conioinid  powers  of  the  General  and  o(  a  Slate 
Government."  And  it  is  said,  that  as  a  Slate  may  unqnot  onably  jiroliibit  slavery 
witbia  its  territory,  this  stntenee  decides  in  ell'ejt  that  Congress  may  do  the  same 
in  a  territory  of  the  United  States,  exercising  there  the  pawer8  of  a  State,  as  well 
as  the  power  of  the  General  Government. 

The  examination  of  this  passage  in  the  ca=e  referred  to,  would  be  more  appropri- 
ate when  we  come  to  consider  in  another  part  uf  this  opinion  what  power  Congress 
can  cons.ituiiu  laliy  exerci-o  in  a  Territory,  over  the  rights  of  person  or  rights  of 
property  of  a  citizen.  But,  as  it  is  in  the  s  ime  case  with  the  pa-sage  wo  have  be- 
fore commen;ed  on.  we  disposeof  it  now,  as  ii  will  save  the  court  Irom  the  necessity 
of  referring  again  to  the  case.  And  it  will  be  seen  upo:i  reading  the  page  in  which 
this  sentence  is  found,  that  it  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  power  of  Congress 
over  lights  of  p-TSon  or  rights  of  property — but  relates  altogether  to  the  power  of 
e-tablishing  judicial  tribunals  to  a  Iniinister  the  laws  constitutionally  passed,  and 
deliaiug  the  jurisdiction  they  may  exercise. 

The  law  of  Congress  establishing  a  'I'erritorial  Government  in  Florida,  provided 
that  the  Legislature  of  the  Territory  should  have  legislative  powers  over  •'  all  right- 
ful objects  of  legislation  ;  but  no  law  should  bj  valid  which  was  inconsistent  wilb 
the  laws  and  Coosiitntioa  of  the  United  States.'' 

Under  the  power  thus  conferred,  the  Legislature  of  Florida  pa«sed  an  act,  erec- 
ting a  tribunal  at  Key  West  to  di'cide  casis  of  salvage.  And  in  the  case  of  which 
we  are  speaking,  the  question  arose  whether  the  Territorial  Legislature  could  ba 
authorised  by  Congres-.  to  establish  sneh  a  tribunal,  with  such  powers;  and  one  ol 
the  parties,  among  other  objections,  in-isted  tiiat  Congr.'ss  could  not  under  the  Con- 
st;tut;ou  authorise  the  Legislature  of  the  Territory  to  establi-h  such  a  tribunal 
with  sueh  powei-s,  but  that  it  must  be  est  iblished  by  Congress  itself;_and  thai  a  sale 
of  cargo  made  undi.-r  its  order,  to  pay  salvors,  was  void,  as  made  without  legal  au- 
thority, and  passed  no  property  to  the  purchaser. 

it  is  in  disposing  of  this  objection  that  tlie  sentence  relied  on  occurs,  and  tho 
court  begin  that  part  of  the  opinio.i  by  stating  with  great  precision  the  point  which 
they  are  about  to  decide. 

they  say  :  '•  It  h  is  been  contended  that  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  judicial  power  oi  the  United  Stat'S  extends  to  all  cases  of  admiralty  andinari- 
tim,' jurisdiciion;  and  that  the  whole  of  ihe  judieial  power  must  be  vested  'in  one 
Supreme  Court,  and  in  such  interior  courts  as  Congress  shall  from  timi'  to  time  or- 
dain and  estaljlf-h.'  Hence  it  has  bee;i  argu/d  that  Coagress  cannot  vest  admiralty 
jurisdiction  in  courts  created  by  the  Territorial  Legislature." 

And  after  thus  clearly  stating  the  point  h'  fore  them,  and  which  they  were  about 
to  decide,  they  proceed  to  show  that  these  Territorial  tribunals  were  not  constitu- 
tinnal  courts,  but  merely  legislative,  and  that  Congress  might,  therefore,  delegate 
tiie  power  to  the  Territorial  Government  to  establish  the  court  in  question  ;  and 
they  conclude  that  part  of  the  opinio  i  in  the  following  words;  -'Altliough  admiralty 
iurisdiction  can  be  exe-rei-ed  in  tneStat'S  in  thos'  courts  only  which  are  established 
in  pur.Mianc!  (jf  tlie  third  article  of  the  Coastitution,  the  .«ame  limitation  does  not 
exte  id  to  the  Territories.  In  higislatiiiu'  f^r  tlhm.  Congress  exercises  the  com- 
bined powers  of  the  General  and  State  Governm-nts.'' 

Thus  it  will  Ijc  .seen  by  these  quotations  from  the  op"nion,  that  the  court,  after 
Etatiijg  the  question  it  was  about  to  decide  iu  a  manner  too  plain  to  be  misunder- 
stood, proceeded  to  dicide  it,  and  announced,  as  the  opinion  of  the  triliunal,  that 
iu  organizing  the  judicial  departm  ,'nt  of  the  Government  in  a  Terr  t ory  of  the 
United  States.  C<tngie-s  does  not  act  nnd'T.  and  is  not  restricted  by  tiie  third  ar- 
ticle in  th  •  Constitution,  and  is  noi  bound,  in  a  Territory,  to  ord  lin  an  1  cstalilish 
courts  in  whicii  the  judges  hold  llieir  <  fliccs  dur  ng  good  b'  havionr,  but  may  ex- 
crcis' the  discrtionary  power  which  a  State  ex- ici-.es  in  establishing  its  judicial 
department,  and  regulating  the  juridiciioi  of  its  courts,  iind  may  authorize  tho 
Territ(»rial  Government  to  establish,  or  may  itself  establish,  courts  iu  which  the 


40  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

ju(lf»es  hol'1  their  oflRc's  for  a  tTm  of  yc  irs  only:  and  may  vest  in  thorn  judicial 
power  upon  .suliji'Cts  coiifiilfd  to  the  juilic'iry  «t  tin-  riiit<-(l  Stitcs.  And  in  doing 
this,  Congres-i  undoub  cdly  i-X'Ttis-s  th-  combitiod  pow  r  of  the  G"n«ral  and  a 
State  Government.  It  exerc  s  -s  the  di-cr  t  onarv  power  of  a  S  ate  Governm'  nt  in 
authorizing  the  estahlishm  lit  of  a  court  in  which  iIk-  jiidge<  hidd  their  appoint- 
ments for  a  term  of  yeas  only,  and  not  dnrng  good  behaviour:  and  it  exercises  the 
power  of  the  General  (iovernment  in  inve<iiiig  that  court  with  admiralty  jurisdic- 
tion, over  which  the  General  (Tovenim-nt  iiadex -lu-^ive  jnr  sdicii  n  in  tiie  'I'errii'iry. 

No  one,  we  presume,  will  question  the  correctness  of  that  opini"n:  nor  is  ih-re 
anything  in  conHict  with  it  in  the  opinion  now  given.  The  point  de-  ded  in  the  case 
cited  has  no  relat.on  to  the  question  now  b  fore  the  court.  That  d<'pended  on  ttie 
construction  of  the  th'rd  article  of  tlie  Coi^^titntion.  in  relation  to  the  Judiciary  of 
the  United  Stites,  and  the  power  which  Congre8>  might  exercise  in  a  Territory  in 
organizing  th"  judicial  department  of  the  Government.  The  ca-e  In-lore  us  depends 
upon  other  and  different  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  altogether  sepirate  and 
apart  from  the  one  above  mentioned  Th  •  question  as  to  what  courts  Congress  may 
ordain  or  establish  in  a  Territory  to  administer  laws  which  the  Con-iitution  author- 
izes it  to  pass,  and  what  laws  it  is  or  is  not  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to  pass, 
are  widely  ditferent — are  regulated  liy  diff  rent  and  separate  articles  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  stand  upon  different  piineiples.  And  we  are  satistied  iliat  nt)  one  who 
reads  attentively  the  page  in  I'eters's  Reports  to  wh  ch  we  have  referred,  can  sup- 
pose that  the  attention  of  the  court  was  drawn  for  a  mom  nt  to  the  question  now 
before  this  court,  or  that  it  meant  in  that  case  to  say  that  Congress  Imd  a  r  ght  to 
prohibit  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  frotn  taking  atiy  property  which  he  lawfully 
held  into  a  Territory  of  the  United  States. 

This  brings  us  to  eximine  by  what  provision  of  the  Constitution  the  present 
Federal  Government,  under  its  delegated  and  restricted  powers,  is  authorized  to  ac- 
quire territory  outride  of  tlie  original  limits  of  the  United  States,  and  what  powers 
it  may  exerci-e  therein  over  the  jierson  orproprty  of  a  c  tizeii  of  the  United  Slat- s, 
\\hile  it  remains  a  Territory,  and  until  it  shall  be  admitted  as  one  of  the  States  of 
the  Union. 

There  is  certainly  no  power  given  by  the  Constitution  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment to  establsh  or  ma'utain  colonies  borlering  on  the  United  States  or  at  a  dis- 
tance, to  be  ruled  nnd  goverm  d  at  it«  own  pleasure:  nor  to  enlarge  its  teiritorial 
limits  in  any  way,  except  by  the  admission  of  new  States.  That  power  is  plainly 
given;  and  if  a  new  .'^t.ite  is  adinitti  d.  it  n^eds  no  further  leg'slatioii  from  Congn  ss. 
because  the  Constitution  iis -If  d -fines  the  relative  rights  and  p  avers,  and  duties  of 
the  State,  and  tiie  citizens  of  the  State,  aiid  the  Federal  Government.  But  no  pow- 
er is  given  to  acquire  a  Territory  to  be  held  and  governed  permanently  in  that 
character. 

And  inde  "d  the  power  exercised  by  Congress  to  acquire  territory  and  establish  a 
Government  tl  ere,  according  to  its  own  uniimited  discretion,  was  viewed  with 
great  j'alousy  by  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  day.  And  in  ihe  Feiler  ili-t.  (No.  38.) 
written  by  Mr.  Madison,  he  speftks  of  th  •  acq  lisiiion  of  the  Xortliwestprn  Territory 
by  theconfeder.ited  States,  by  the  cess  on  frotn  Virgiina.  and  the  cstablislunent  of 
a  Government  there,  as  an  exercise  of  power  not  warranted  by  the  Artid 'sof  Con- 
federation, an  1  dan.cerous  to  the  lib'ities  of  th  •  people.  And  he  urge*  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  as  a  security  a:id  safeguard  against  such  an  exercise  of 
power. 

We  do  not  moan,  however,  to  question  the  power  of  Congress  in  this  respect. 
The  power  to  expand  the  terr  toiy  of  the  United  States  by  the  adu)  ss  on  of  new 
States  is  jdainly  given:  a  id  in  the  construction  of  this  power  liy  all  the  ilepart- 
ments  of  tlie  (iovernment,  it  has  lieen  held  to  anliioriz"  the  acqui^iliim  of  ten  iiory, 
not  fit  for  adiniss'on  at  the  tim",  but  lol)'  admitted  as  s>on  as  it-  pipiilation  and 
situation  would  entitle  it  to  admi  sion.  It  is  acquired  to  become  a  State,  and  not 
to  behf'ld  as  a  c  ihmyand  L'overned  l)y  Co.igres- wiili  ab-ojuieaulhoriiy;  and  as  the 
propriety  of  ad  iTii  I  ti;"g  a  new  Stale  is  cominitf;!  to  ihesomd  discreti  n  of  Congress, 
the  pow  r  to  a  q  ir  •  teiritory  for  that  purpose,  to  be  held  l>y  Ihe  United  States 
until  it  is  in  a  suitable  condiiion  to  become  a  Slate  upon  an  equ  d  fo  iting  with  the 
other  States,  must  rest  upon  the  s  ime  di-cretiou.  It  i<  a  question  tor  the  p  >lit'cal 
department  ol  lh<'  Governtnent.  and  not  the  judiciil:  au<l  whatever  the  political 
departme.it  of  the  Govemmiit  shall  nc 'gnize  as  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  the  judicial  department  is  :il,s  i  bmnd  to  recog  lize,  a  id  to  administer  in  it 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  so  far  as  they  apply,  and  to  muinlaiu  in  the  Territory 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  41 

the  authority  and  rights  of  Ihe  Government,  and  also  the  por-onnl  rights  and 
riijhts  of  property  of  individual  cit'zen«,  i\s  secured  liy  ti)e  Coiistituiion.  All  we 
m  ';in  to  siy  on  lliis  p  int  is.  that,  :is  there  i<  no  express  regiiiuiion  in  th(!  Constitu- 
tion deliningtho  power  which  tiie  General  Government  may  <  xi-rcise  ovtr  thi-  person 
or  property  of  a  citizen  in  a  Teriitory  thus  iu-qnind,  ihe  court  niu.-t  n(  cei-sirily 
look  to  thi-  provisio.is  a  id  j>rinc'ples  of  the  C(jn<tituti(in,  ami  its  distribution  of 
powers,  for  the  rules  and  principles  liy  which  its  decision  must  be  governed. 

Taking  this  rule  to  guide  us,  it  may  be  salely  iissumed  that  ciii/.eas  of  tlie  United 
Stat".s  who  mij:iate  to  a  Ten  iiory  lielo:igi;ig  to  the  p  opl-'  of  the  Un  ted  Stab  s,  cannot 
be  ruled  as  mere  colonists,  depeudint  upon  tlie  will  of  the  Gem  nil  Government,  and  to 
be  governed  liy  any  law.s  it  may  think  jirop'T  to  impose.  The  priixple  upon  which 
our  Goveininents  rst,  and  upon  wliicli  alone  they  continue  to  exist,  is  the  un  on  of 
States,  sovereign  and  indepen<lrni  within  their  own  limits  in  tiieir  internal  ami  do- 
mesiic  cone  rns,  and  bouiul  togellier  as  one  peoi)le  by  a  General  Governm  'ut,  pos- 
sessing certain  onumeiated  and  r(  stricted  powers.  d"legiited  to  if  by  the  people  of 
the  s 'veral  States,  and  exercising  supreme  authority  within  the  scope  of  the  ])owers 
granted  to  it,  through  ut  the  dominion  of  the  Unit' d  Slates.  A  imwer.  iherelore, 
in  tlie  Generd  Govmnment  to  obtain  and  hold  colonies  and  depend  nt  territories, 
over  which  they  m'glit  legislate  wiihout  restriction,  would  b'  incon.-i>tent  wiih  its 
own  existence  in  its  present  lorm.  Whatever  it  acquires,  it  acijuires  for  the  benefit 
of  the  people  of  the  several  .^tat-s  who  created  it.  It  is  th"ir  trustee  act  ng  for 
them,  and  charired  with  the  duty  of  promdting  the  interests  of  the  whole  people  of 
the  whole  Union  in  the  evereise  of  the  powers  specifically  granted. 

At  the  time  when  the  Territory  in  question  was  obtained  by  ce-sion  from  France, 
it  contain!  d  no  population  lit  to  be  associated  together  and  admitted  as  a  State; 
and  it  th^  refore  was  absolutely  necessary  to  hold  poss  '.'sion  of  it,  as  a  TerritiTy  be- 
longing to  thr  United  States,  until  it  wa>  settled  and  inhabilid  by  a  civilized  com- 
munity ctpable  of  self-government,  and  in  a  condition  to  bo  admitted  on  equal 
terms  with  the  other  .Stales  as  a  memljc-  of  the  Union.  But.  as  we  have  before  said, 
it  was  acquired  by  the  General  Governrn'mt,  as  the  representative  and  trustee  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  it  must  therefore  be  held  in  that  character  for 
their  common  and  equal  benefit;  for  it  was  the  people  of  the  several  States,  acting 
through  their  agent  and  r'presenlative.  the  Federal  (Jovrrninent,  who  in  fact  acquired 
th<'Ti  rriiory  in  qu  'st'on.  and  the  Gov<  rnment  holds  it  for  tlieir  common  u?e  until 
itshall  be  associated  with  the  other  States  as  a  member  of  the  Union. 

But  until  that  time  arrives,  it  is  undoubtedly  necssary  that  f-omo  Government 
Bhould  be  established  in  ord'T  to  organize  society,  and  to  protect  the  inh.ibitants  in 
their  pn-sons  and  prop  rty;  and  as  the  people  of  the  United  States  could  act  in  tiiis 
ma'ter  o  ily  throui,di  ilie  Government  which  represented  them,  and  through  which 
they  spoke  a  id  acte<l  when  tlu'  Territory  was  olitained,  it  was  tiot  o  ily  within  the 
scope  of  iis  powers,  but  it  was  its  duty  to  pass  such  laws  and  establisli  such  a  Gov- 
ernment as  would  enable  those  by  whose  autiioriiy  they  acted  to  reap  the  advant.igea 
aniicipi^ted  from  iis  acquisition,  and  to  gather  there  a  population  wh  eh  would  ena- 
ble it,  to  a-sume  the  p  isition  to  which  it  wasdtsiined  among  the  S;at(Sof  the  Union, 
The  pow  r  to  acquire  nece.'-s  uily  carries  with  it  the  power  to  pn  serve  and  apply  to 
the  purposes  tor  which  it  wa-  aequiri  d.  The  form  of  governuu  nt  to  be  establ.shed 
nec<s-ari!y  n  sted  in  the  discretion  of  Congress.  It  wa.s  their  duly  to  otablish  the 
one  that  would  Ijc  best  suited  for  the  jirotection  and  security  of  the  eiiizmis  of  the 
United  State-,  and  other  inhabitants  who  m  ght  be  authorized  to  take  up  theirabode 
there,  and  that  must  always  depend  upon  the  existing  condition  of  the  Territory,  as 
to  the  number  and  ch  iract  r  of  its  inhabilantr.,  and  their  situation  in  the  Territory. 
In  some  case-  a  (iover.iraent.  consisting  of  persons  appointed  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, would  b'St  subserv  •  the  interests  of  the  Territory,  win  n  the  inhabitants 
were  ft'w  an  I  scattered,  and  new  to  one  another.  In  other  instances,  it  would  be 
more  advisable  o  co  nmit  the  powers  of  self-governmi  nt  to  the  p 'ople  who  had  set- 
tled in  thi  Territory,  as  i)eiag  tlie  most  competent  to  determine  wh  it  was  best  for 
their  own  interests.  But  some  form  of  civil  autlioiity  would  be  absolutely  neeea- 
eary  to  organize  and  jir'serve  c  vlizeil  society,  and  prepare  it  t  >  become  a  State  ; 
and  what  is  tlie  be-u  form  must  al.vavs  depend  on  the  condition  of  th  ■  territory  at 
the  lime,  and  the  choice  of  the  mode  innst  depend  upon  the  ex  icise  of  a  discretion- 
ary power  by  Co  igress,  a'-ti  ig  wlihin  the  scope  of  it^  constiliuional  authority,  and 
not  infringnig  upon  th'i  rights  of  per-so-i  or  rights  of  property  of  the  citizen  who 
might  go  thu-re  to  reside,  or  for  auy  other  lawful  purpose,    it  was  acquired  by  the 


42  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

exorris'^  of  lliis  (Vpcniioii,  and  it  must  be  held  and  governed  in  like  mannpr,  until 
it  ''S  fitii  d  lo  !>■  11  Slate. 

But  ihe  powr  of  Coiiirre^P  over  the  person  or  propffty  of  a  ciiizfn  can  never 
b**  a  ni'  re  d  screiinnary  power  U!id>T  our  Cun^titulion  and  form  ol  GovernmenL 
Th»  powf|-s  of  (lie  G'VtTnment  and  ihf  rijj'ils  and  privilcg-s  of  (he  ciiizi'ii  an-  rejj- 
ulitel  and  plainly  di-lined  by  the  Constitution  itsdf.  Aiid  when  tiie  T>riitiry 
l)<'Com<8  i\  p:irt  ot  th"  UniiMl  Stutes.  the  Fdleral  Govi-rnment  ontt-is  into  po>se--ion 
in  ilie  c!:aract<;r  inipnssid  upon  it  l>y  tno.«<'  wlio  created  it.  It  ei.ters  upon  it  with 
it«  povers  ovr  thi'  ctizen  strictly  defined,  and  limited  by  the  Constiiiition.  from 
which  it  dfT  ve.«  it^  own  existence,  and  by  virlu'-  of  which  alone  it  continu's  to 
exi-t  and  act  as  a  Govemm'-nt  aid  sovereignty.  It  lias  no  power  of  any  kind  be- 
yo  id  it;  and  it  cannot,  when  it  enters  a  Territory  of  tiie  United  Statis.  put  '«n  its 
character,  and  a.^i-urni'  discivtinnary  or  despotic  powers  which  ihe  Con-tituton  has 
denied  lo't.  It  cannot  create  for  i  Silf  a  new  character  s  para; ed  f.om  the  c  'izena 
of  the  Unled  States,  and  tlie  duties  it  owes  tlicm  under  the  pMvisiun.s  of  the  Cod- 
stilution.  Th"  Territory  beint;  a  part  <tf  tlie  United  States,  tiie  Gi.verninent  and 
the  c  t  z  -n  both  enter  it  undi  r  the  antliority  of  the  Constitut  on,  with  thi  ir  reFpec- 
tive  rights  defined  and  maiked  out;  and  tlie  Federal  (Government  can  exercise  no 
power  over  his*  person  or  property,  beyond  what  that  iustiumcnt  confers,  nor  law- 
fully deny  any  right  which  it  has  res -rved. 

A  reference  to  a  few  of  the  previsions  of  the  Constitution  will  illuftrate  this 
pr 'position. 

For  eximple.  no  ono,  we  presume,  will  contend  that  Centres?  can  make  any  law 
in  a  Territory  respectin-.;  the  establishmetit  of  religion,  or  the  tree  exercise  thereof, 
or  ahr'dcrinn;  the  trecilom  of  speech  or  of  the  pre-s,  or  the  right  of  the  people  of  the 
Terriioiy  peaceably  to  assemble,  and  to  pciition  the  Government  for  the  redress 
of  ffrievances. 

Nor  can  Congress  deny  to  the  people  the  right  to  keep  and  benr  arms,  nor  the 
right  to  trial  l^y  jury,  nor  compel  any  one  to  be  a  witness  against  himself  in  a  crim- 
inal proceeding. 

These  powers,  and  others,  in  relation  to  rights  of  person,  wldi  h  it  is  not  neces- 
sary here  to  enumerate,  are,  in  express  and  positive  term<.  den  •  d  to  the  General 
Govrnment:  and  the  right-  of  private  property  have  been  guarded  with  •  qual  earo. 
Tlius  therghts  of  property  are  united  with  the  rights  of  p -r-on.  and  placed  on  the 
aim"  ground  by  the  filth  amendment  to  the  Con-titution,  which  provi  !es  that  no 
person  sha'l  b"  d'  privtMl  of  life,  lilierty.  a:'d  iiroperty.  without  due  process  of  law. 
And  an  act  of  Congre-s  which  deprives  a  citizen  of  the  Unite  1  States  of  his  lilieriy 
or  property,  merely  1  eraus"  he  came  himself  or  brousiht  lii*  property  into  a  partic- 
ular Territory  of  the  Ui.it>d  Sijiie-',  and  who  had  committed  no  otfeuce  against  the 
laws,  could  hardly  be  diirnifi  il  with  the  name  of  due  proc-ss  of  law. 

So.  too,  it  wll  harilly  be  contended  that  Congress  could  l>y  law  quarter  a  soldier 
in  a  house  in  a  T' rritory  without  'he  consent  of  the  owu'r,  'n  time  of  peace;  nor 
in  time  of  war.  hut  in  a  manner  prescribed  by  law.  Nor  could  tliey  by  law  forfeit 
the  property  of  a  citizen  in  a  Territoiy  who  was  convicted  of  trea-on.  for  a  longer 
period  than  th  •  lite  of  the  p  rsou  couvicied;  nor  take  private  property  for  public 
use  without  jiist  compen.-ation. 

Til"  powi  rs  over  person  and  property  of  which  we  speak  are  not  only  not  granted 
to  Congress,  bnt  an;  in  expres-i  terms  denied,  and  they  are  forbidden  to  exercise 
them.  And  this  prohil)lti<  nis  not  confined  to  the  States,  but  the  word<  are  general, 
and  extetid  to  lli"  whole  territory  over  which  the  Con>t  tution  gives  it  power  to 
legis'at ".  inc!u  lingtho^e  portions  of  it  remaining  under  Trnitorial  Government,  as 
well  :is  tha  covred  by  .States.  It  is  a  total  alisence  of  powi  r  everywhere  withia 
Ihe  domitui  n  of  the  Unit  d  States,  and  places  the  citizens  of  a  Terr'Iory.  so  far  as 
the-e  riiihis  are  concerned,  on  the  same  looting  with  ci  iz-nsot  tlie  States,  and 
guards  them  as  firmly  tmd  plaitily  against  any  inroads  wiiich  tlie  General  Govern- 
ment mijlit  attempt,  under  tne  jilea  of  imi)lied  or  incid 'iital  powers  Atid  if  Con- 
press  itself  canint  do  th's — if  it  is  beyond  the  powers  e(m!err  d  on  the  Fe<leral 
Government — it  will  be  admitted,  we  jire-ume,  that  il  conld  not  i\uthorise  a  Terri- 
torial flovc  rnment  to  ex'ivisc  Ihem.  It  could  conler  no  power  on  aiiy  heal  Gov- 
ernmnt.  e-iahlisheil  by  its  authority,  to  violate  the  pr.  visions  of  the  Constitution. 
It  setnjs.  h()wev<  r.  to  be  supposed,  that  there  is  a  «lifieri  nee  between  jiropi  rly  in 
a  nlave  and  other  pri  perty.  and  that  diflfvrent  rules  )nay  be  ap]  lied  to  it  in  cxi>oun- 
diug  the  Cousiituliun  of  tl.e  United  Slalca.    And  the  laws  and  usages  of  uatious, 


THE  DEED  SCOTT  DECISION.  H 

and  tte  writinga  of  eminent  jurist''  upon  tbo  relation  of  master  and  slave  and  their 
mutual  rights  and  duties,  and  the  powers  which  Goverumeuts  may  exercise  over  it, 
have  been  dwelt  upon  in  the  argument. 

But  in  considering  the  question  before  us,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  is 
no  law  of  nations  standing  between  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  tlieir  Gov- 
ernment, and  interfering  with  tbi'ir  relation  to  each  other.  The  powers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  the  rights  ot  the  citizen  under  it,  are  positive  and  practical  regulations 
plainly  written  down.  The  people  of  the  United  States  have  delegated  to  it  certain 
enumerated  powers,  and  forbidden  it  to  exercifc  others.  It  has  no  power  ovi  r  tlie 
person  or  property  of  a  citizen  but  what  the  citiz'  ns  of  the  United  Stites  have 
granted.  And  no  laws  or  usages  of  other  na'.ions,  or  reasoning  of  stutesmen  or  ju- 
rists upon  the  relations  of  master  and  slave,  can  enlarge  the  j)owers  of  the  Govern- 
ment, or  take  from  the  citizens  the  rights  tliey  have  reserved.  And  if  the  Consti- 
tution recognizes  the  right  of  property  of  the  master  in  a  slave,  and  makes  no 
distinction  between  that  description  of  property  and  oth^r  prop 'rty  owm  d  by  a 
citizen,  no  tribunal,  acting  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  whether  ii  be 
legislative,  executive,  or  judicial,  has  a  right  to  draw  such  a  d  stinct'on.  or  dei.y 
to  it  the  benefit  of  the  provisions  and  guarantees  which  have  been  piovidtd  for  ihe 
protection  of  private  property  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Government. 

Now,  as  w?  have  already  said  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  opinion,  upon  a  dill'erent 
po'nt.  the  right  of  propf^rty  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  ihe 
Constitution.  The  rigtit  to  traffic  in  it,  like  an  ordinary  article  of  m^  rchandise  and 
property,  was  guarantied  to  the  citiz  mis  of  the  United  States,  in  every  State  that 
might  desire  it.  for  twenty  years.  And  the  Government  in  express  terms  is  pledged 
to  protect  it  in  all  future  time,  if  the  slave  escapes  from  his  owner.  This  is  done  in 
plain  words— too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  And  no  word  can  be  found  in  the 
Constitution  which  gives  Congress  a  greater  power  over  slave  property,  or  which 
entitles  property  of  that  kind  to  less  protection  than  property  of  any  Oiher  des- 
cription. The  only  power  conferred  is  the  power  coupled  with  the  duty  of  guarding 
and  protecting  the  owner  in  his  rights. 

Upon  these  consid-^rations.  it  is  the  op'nion  of  th"  court  that  the  act  of  Congress 
which  prohibited  a  citizen  from  holding  and  owning  property  of  tliis  kind  in  tlie 
territory  of  the  United  States  north  of  the  line  therein  mentioned,  is  not  warranted 
by  the  Constitution,  and  is  therefore  void;  and  that  neither  Dr<  d  Scott  himself,  nor 
anv  of  his  familv,  were  made  free  by  being  carried  into  this  territory;  even  if  tliey 
had  been  carried  there  by  the  owner,  with  the  intention  of  becoming  a  permanent 
resident. 

"We  have  fo  far  ex^imined  the  case,  a'  it  stands  under  the  Constitnt'on  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  powers  thereby  delegated  to  the  Fed'ral  GovernuKnt. 

But  Ih're  is  another  point  in  the  ca.«e  which  depends  on  State  power  and  State 
law  And  it  is  contended,  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff,  that  he  is  made  free  i.y  being 
taken  to  Rock  Island,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  independently  of  his  re>id-nce  in  tlie 
territory  of  the  United  States;  and  being  so  made  free,  he  was  not  again  reduced  to 
a  state  of  slavery  by  being  brougiit  back  to  Missouri. 

Our  notice  of  this  part  of  the  case  will  be  very  brief;  for  the  principle  on  which 
it  depends  was  decided  in  this  court,  upon  much  consideration  in  the  case  ot  Sira- 
deret  al  r  Graham,  reported  in  lOlh  Howard,  82.  In  that  case,  the  slav(  shad  been 
taken  fro-n  Kf-ntncky  to  Oliio.  with  tiie  consent  of  the  owner,  and  afterwards  brought 
back  to  Kentucky  And  this  court  held  that  their  status  or  condition,  as  free  or 
slave  d.-pended  upo'i  th-  laws  of  Kentucky,  \\hen  they  w.  re  brongiit  back  into  that 
State  and  not  of  Ohio:  and  that  this  court  had  no  jnrusdici:on  to  revise  the  jtulg- 
ment'of  a  State  court  unon  its  own  laws.  Tiiis  was  tlie  point  directly  before  tlie 
court,  and  (he  decision  that  this  court  had  not  jurisdiction  turned  upon  it,  us  will 
be  seen  by  the  report  of  the  case.  .  .    ,v    c.  .      nn-     •   i,    i  •= 

So  in  this  case.  As  Scott  was  a  slave  when  taken  into  the  State  of  Illinois  by  his 
owner  and  was  there  held  as  such,  and  brought  back  in  that  character,  hi>^  status,  as 
free  or  slave,  d-p-nded  on  the  laws  of  Missouri,  and  not  of  Illinois. 

It  ha"  howev.T,  been  urged  in  the  argum.'nt,  that  by  the  laws  of  Missouri  he  was 
free  en  his  return,  and  that  this  case,  therefore,  cannot  be  govein-d  by  the  ca>e  of 
Sirad.T  et  al  v.  Grnl  am.  where  it  appeared,  by  the  Ihw^  of  K( mucky,  tl.at  the 
Blaiiitiffs  continued  to  be  slaves  on  their  return  from  Ohio.  But  whatever  doubts 
or  oninioiis  mav,  at  on--  tim-.  have  been  entertained  u|.on  th's  .-ubj.  ct,  we  are  sat- 
ifificd  upon  a  careful  cxauiiuation  of  all  the  cases  decld.  d  in  the  State  courts  oi 


44  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 

Missouri  referred  to,  that  it  is  now  firmly  settled  by  the  decisions  of  the  highest 
court  ill  the  Statu,  that  Scott  aud  his  fam  ly  upo;»  their  re  urn  were  nttt  tne,  but 
wre,  by  the  liws  of  Mi^ouri,  the  property  of  the  de:tndiiut;  and  that  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  Uuited  Suit  -s  had  no  jurisdiction,  when,  by  tlie  laws  of  the  State,  the 
plaintiff  w  is  a  glave,  and  not  a  citizen. 

Moreover,  the  plaintiff,  it  appears,  brought  a  similar  action  apainst  the  defendant 
in  the  State  Court  of  Ml.-souri,  claiming  the  freedom  ofhim-olf  a:id  his  family  upon 
the  same  grounds  and  the  t-ame  evidence  upo:i  which  he  rel  es  in  the  case  belore  the 
court  The  case  was  carrii-d  befure  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Slat  •;  was  fully  ar- 
gued there;  and  that  court  decided  that  neither  the  plaint  ff  nor  his  family  were 
entithd  to  freidom.  and  were  still  the  slaves  of  the  def-ndint;  and  rever^ed  the 
judgment  of  the  inferior  State  court,  whicii  h  id  given  a  different  decision.  If  the 
plaintiff  suppos'Ml  t'.iatihis  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Slate  was  erron- 
eous, and  that  this  court  h;id  jurLsdiction  to  revise  and  rev(  rse  it.  the  only  mode 
by  which  he  could  legally  bring  it  bef  )re  this  court  was  by  writ  of  error  directed  to 
tlie  Supreme  Court  of  thi  Slate,  requiring  it  to  iranf^mit  the  record  to  this  court. 
If  this  had  been  done,  it  is  tio  plain  for  argum  nt  that  the  writ  must  have  been 
dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction  in  this  court.  The  c;use  of  Strader  and  others  v. 
Gr.v'.iam  is  directly  in  punt;  au'l,  indeed,  iddependentof  anydeci-ion,  the  language 
of  the  2.5th  secuon  of  the  ace  of  1789  is  too  char  and  precis  ■  to  admit  of  controversy. 

But  the  plaintiff  did  not  pursife  the  mode  prescribed  by  1  iw  for  brinudiig  tlie 
judgment  of  a  State  court  before  thi^  court  for  revision,  b  t  suffered  the  case  Ui  be 
remanded  to  the  inferior  State  court,  wliere  it  is  >till  co:itinued,  and  is,  by  agree- 
ment of  parlies,  to  await  ihe  judgment  of  this  court  on  the  point.  All  of  this  ap- 
pears on  the  record  beloie  us,  and  by  the  printid  nport  of  tiie  case. 

And  while  the  case  is  yet  open  and  pending  in  t!ie  inf  rior  State  court,  the  plain- 
tiff goes  into  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  up.n  the  same  case  and  tlie 
same  evidence,  and  against  the  same  party,  and  proc  eds  to  judgment,  and  then 
brings  here  the  same  case  from  the  Circuit  Court,  whic'i  the  law  would  n.)t  have 
penuitted  him  to  bring  directly  from  the  State  court.  And  if  this  court  takes  jnris- 
dietion  in  iliis  form,  the  result,  so  far  as  thi?  riglits  of  the  respective  parties  iire 
concerned,  is  in  every  respect  substantially  the  >aine  as  if  it  had  in  op  ii  vioiat'ou 
of  law  entertained  jiiVi-diction  over  tlie  judgni 'tit  of  the  State  c^'urt  upon  a  writ  of 
error,  and  revised  and  reversed  its  judgment  upon  the  ground  that  its  opinion  upon 
the  question  o!  law  w  is  erron /ous.  It  would  i;l  becom  •  this  court  to  sanetion  sueh 
an  attemfit  to  evad  ■  tlie  law,  or  to  ex  rcise  an  appellate  power  in  th  s  circuitous 
way,  which  it  is  forbidden  to  exercise  in  thedirect  and  regular  and  invariable  loims 
of  judicial  proceedings. 

Upo:i  tiie  whole,  therefore,  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  court,  that  it  appears  by  the 
record  before  us  that  the  plaintiff  in  error  is  not  a  citizen  of  Mis.-ouri.  in  the  sense 
in  whieh  that  word  is  used  in  thj  Constitution;  and  that  the  Ciicu  t  Court  of  the 
United  St it-s,  for  that  reason,  had  nojutisliction  in  the  case,  aud  could  give  no 
judgment  in  it.  Its  judgment  for  the  dei'endant  must,  consequently,  ix^  leversed, 
and  a  mandate  issued,  dir^cliug  the  suit  to  be  diamissed  for  want  of  juriidic.iou. 


APPENDIX. 


[From  the  New  York  Day-Book,  Not.  10,  1857.] 

NATURAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  PROGNATHOUS  SPECIES  OF   MANKIND. 

BT   DR.  SAMUEL  A.  CAUTWRIQUT,    OP  NEW  ORLEANS. 

It  is  not  intended  by  the  use  of  the  term  Prognathous  to  call  in  question  the 
black  man's  humanity  or  tlic  unity  of  tim  hum  in  r.ices  as  a  genus,  but  to  prove 
that  the  spsvies  ot  the  ge:iu.s  homo  are  not  a  unity,  but  a  plural. ty,  each  i-s-aen- 
tially  different  from  the   others — one  of  thum  biiini?   so  unlik;  thj   other  two— 
the  oval-headed  Caucasian  and  the   pyr.imidal-heud.'d   .Mo:igoiia!i — as  to   be   ac- 
tually prognathous,  like  the  brute   creation;    not    that  the  negro   is  a   brute,  or 
half  man  and  half  brute,  bat  a  genuine  human  being,  anatomically  constructed, 
about  the  head  and  face,    more  like  the  monkey   tribes   and  the  lower  order  of 
animals  than  any  other  fp  cies  of  the  genus   man.     Prognathous  is  a  tichnical 
term  derived  from  pro,  before,  and  p;7iaihos,  the  jaws,  iiidicat'ng  that  the  muzzle 
or  mouth  is  anterior  to  the  brain.     The  lowr  animals,  according  to  Cuvicr,  are 
distingui.shed  from  the  Euiopi'au  and   Mongol  man  by  the   mouth  and  face  projec- 
ting further  forward  in  the  profile  than  the  brain.     He  expres.scs  the  rule  thus : 
face  anterior,  (ranium  posterior.    The  typical  negroes  of  adult  age,  when  tried  by 
this  rule,  are  proved  to  belong  to  a  diff  rent  sp  C!c.'«  from  the  man  of  Europe  or 
Asia,  because  the  head  and  fnCJ  are  anatomic  illy  constructed  more  aft-r  the  fash- 
ion of  the  simiadia;  and  the  brute  cre.ition  than  the  Cauua-ian  and  .Mongolian  .specii  s 
of  mankind,  their  mouih  and  jaws  projecting  beyond  the  forehead  contain  ng  the 
anterior  lobes  of  the  brain.     Moreover,  their  faces  are  proportioaally  larger^than 
their  crania,  instead  of  smiUer,  as  in  the    other  two  specie.-^   of  the  g^nus  man. 
Young  monkeys  and  young  negroes,  however,  are  not  prognathous  like  their  par- 
ents, but  become  so  as  thn'  grow  older.      The  head  of  the  infant  ourang  outang  is 
like  that  of  a  well  formed  Caucasian  child  in  the  projection  and  height  ot  the  fore- 
head and  the  convexity  of  the  vertea.     The  brain  apfiears  to  be  larger  than  it  re- 
ally i.",  because  the  face,  at  b  rth,  has  not  attained  its  proporfoiial  sizj.     Tiie  face 
of  the  Caucasian  infant  is  a  little  under  its  proportional  s  z,-  when  compared  with 
the  cranium.      In  the  infant  negro  and  ourang  outang  it  is  greatly  so.      Although 
80  much  smaller  in  infancy  than  the  cranium,  the  (ace    of   the  young  mo.ikey  ulti- 
mately outgrows  the  cranium;  so,  al.-o.  doesthe  face  of  the  young  negro,  whereas 
in  the  Caucasian,  the  face  always  continues  to  b- smaller  than  the  cranium.     Tne 
Buperfices  of   the  face  at  p  iberty  exceeds  that  of  the  ha'ry  scalp  both  in  the  negro 
and  the  monkey,  while  it  is  always   less  in  the  while  man.     Young  n^onkeys   imd 
jroung  negroes  are  sup  Tier  to  white  cliil  hen  of  the  s  im ;  age  in  m  mory  and  other 
intellectual  facultie-.     1  ho  white  infant  ooires  into  the  world  with  its  brain  inclos- 
ed by  fifteen  disunited  bony  plates— the  occip'tal  bi(n  i  b  'iiig  dividi'd  into  four  par;s, 
the_ sphenoid  into  three,  the  iro.:tal  into  two,  each  of  t'le  two   temporals  into  two, 
which,  with  the  two  pirietals.  make  fifteen  pla'es  in  all— the  vomer  and  ethmoid 
not  being  ossified  at  liirlh.     The  bon  s  of  the  head  are  not  only  disunited,  but  are 
more  or  less  overlapped  at  b  rtii.  in  conscquenci  of  the  1  irgene3<  of  the  Caucasian 
childs  head  and  the  smallne-s  of    ts  mo:hers  p  Iv's,  giving  the  iiead  a  i  elongat  -d 
form,  and  an  irregula  ,  knotty  feel  to  tin-  touch.     The  negro  infa  it.  h.>wi'V(>r,  i.s  born 
with  a  small,  hard,  smo'ith,  nmnd  1  ead  like  a  gourd.    Instead  ol  the  frontal  and  tem- 
poral bones  being  divided  into  si.K  plates,  as  in  the  white  child,  thy  form  but  one  bone 
in  the  negro  infant.  The  head  is  not  only  sma'ler  than  that  ot  tliewhit.- child,  but  the 
pelvis  of  the  negress  is  wid -r  than  ihit  ot  the  white  woman— its  greater  obliquity 
also  favors  parturitiou  and  prevcnits  mi.«carriage. 

Negro  c'.iildren  and  white  ciiildr  n  an;  alke  at  birth  in  one  remarkable  particu- 
lar— they  are  b  ilh  born  wkite,  and  so  much  alike,  as  far  as  color  [^  concerned,  as 
scarcely  to  be  distinguished  from  eic!i  other.  Ii  a  very  short  t'me.  hiwevr,  the 
skin  of  the  n  'gro  infant  begins  to  d  irkm  and  cont  nues  t  >  grow  d  nk  ;r  until  it  b  •- 
comes  of  a  shining  black  color,  provide  1  theclrld  b-  heilthy  Thi.'skiii  will  beco  ne 
bla  k  whether  e.xposed  to  the  air  and  lig'it  or  not.  Th  :  black  i  ss  is  not  of  as  de  p 
a  shade  during  the  first  years  of  life,  a.s  afterwards.  The  black  c  ilor  is  uot  so  «l"ep 
in  the  female  as  in  the  m  le,  nor  in  the  feeble,  sickly  negro  as   in  thj  robu-t  and 


46  APPENDIX 

healthy.  Blackness  is  a  ch/vracteristic  of  the  prognalhous  species  of  the  genus  homo, 
but  all  the  vuiio  ii's  of  all  the  i)ro:^aathoii8  ppccies  aru  not  equiilly  bliiok.  Nor  are 
the  indiviiliuiLs  of  the  same  family  or  variety  eqiuilly  80.  fh;  lighter  shades  of 
color,  when  uol  d'Tived  from  admixture  with  Mongolian  or  Cauea>ian  blood,  indi- 
cate degeneratiiin  iu  the  prognalhous  s^pecies.  The  IlolteutDt",  Bushmen  aud  abori- 
gin-s  ot  Aiislnilia  are  inferior  in  mind  aud  body  to  the  typical  African  of  Guinea 
and  the  Nis^er. 

The  typical  negroes  themselves  are  more  or  less  superior  or  inferior  to  one 
anoth  T  pn  cistly  ii8  they  approximate  to  or  recede  from  the  typical  standard  iu 
color  and  forni,  due  allowance  being  made  for  age  and  ?cx.  Tiie  standard  i-  an 
oily,  shining  black,  and  as  far  as  the  conformation  of  the  head  and  face  is  concerned 
ana  the  relative  proportion  of  ncivous  matter  outside  of  the  cranium  to  the  quau- 
tity  of  cerebral  matter  within  it.  Is  found  between  the  simiadia;  aud  the  Caucasian. 
Thus,  in  the  tvpical  negro,  a  pi'rpendicular  line,  let  fall  from  the  forehead,  cuts  otf  a 
large  portion  of  the  face,  throwing  the  mout'i,  the  thick  lips,  and  the  prnjecting 
teeth  anterior  to  the  cranium,  but  not  the  entire  face,  as  in  the  lower  an'mals  and 
monk'-y  trib  .s.  AVhen  all,  or  a  greater  part  of  the  face  is  thrown  anterior  to  the 
line,  the  negro  apprnximates  th  •  monkey  anatomically  more  than  he  doe.-?  the  true 
Caucasian;  and  when  little  or  none  of  the  face  is  anterior  to  the  line  he  approxi- 
mates that  mythical  being  of  Dr.  Van  Evrie,  a  black  white  man,  and  almost  ceases  to 
be  a  negro.  The  black  mm  occasionally  seen  in  Africa,  called  the  Bnture  Dwiu, 
with  high  nose,  thin  lips,  and  long  straight  hair,  is  not  a  negro  at  all,  but  a  Moor 
tanned  by  the  climate — because  his  children,  not  exposed  to  tbe  sun,  do  not  become 
black  like  himself  The  typical  negro's  nervous  system  is  modelled  a  little  diffe- 
rent from  the  Caucasian  and  somewhat  like  the  ourani?  outang.  The  m'-dnllary 
Epinal  cord  is  largei'  and  more  developed  than  in  the  white  man,  but  less  so  than  in 
the  monkey  tribes.  The  occipital  foramen,  giving  e.xt  to  the  spinal  cord,  is  a  third 
longer,  says  Cuvier,  in  proportion  to  its  breadth,  than  in  the  Caucasian,  and  is  so 
obi  que  as  to  form  an  angle  of  30'  with  the  horizon,  yet  not  so  ol>l;que  as  in  the 
simiadia;,  but  sufficiently  so  to  throw  the  head  somewhat  backwards  and  the  face 
upwards  in  the  erect  position.  Henco,  from  the  obliijuity  of  the  head  and  th ,'  pelvis, 
the  negro  walks  steadier  with  a  weight  on  his  head,  as  a  pail  of  water  for  instance, 
th  in  without  it;  whereas,  the  white  man,  with  a  weight  on  his  head,  has  great  diffi- 
culty in  maintaining  his  centre  of  gravity,  owing  to  the  occipital  foramen  forming 
no  angle  with  the  cranium,  the  pelvis,  the  spine,  or  the  thighs — all  forming  a 
straight  line  from  the  crown  of  the  head  to  the  sole  of  the  foot  without  any  of  the 
obliquities  seen  in  the  negro's  knees,  thighs,  pelvis  and  head— and  still  more  evi- 
dent in  the  ourang  outang. 

The  norv(,'S  of  organic  life  are  larger  in  the  prognathous  species  of  mankind  than 
in  the  Cauca.«ian  species,  but  not  so  well  developed  as  in  the  simiadiic.  The  brain 
is  about  tenth  smilb-r  in  the  prognathous  man  than  in  the  Frenchman,  as  proved 
by  actual  measurement  of  skulls  by  the  French  savans,  Palisot  and  Virey.  Hence, 
from  the  small  bran  a  id  the  larger  nerves,  the  digestion  ot  the  prognatiious  epecies 
is  better  than  that  of  the  Caucasian  and  its  animal  appetites  stionger,  approaching 
the  >imiadae  but  stopping  short  of  their  beasliality.  The  nostrils  of  the  prognathous 
species  of  mankind  ope  i  higher  up  than  they  do  in  the  white  or  olive  spjcies,  but 
not  so  high  up  as  in  the  monkey  tribes.  In  the  gibbon,  for  instance,  they  open  be- 
tween the  orbits.  Althonirh  the  typical  negro's  nostrils  open  high  up,  yet  owing  to 
the  nasal  bones  being  shot  t  and  11  it,  there  is  no  projectioti  or  prominence  formed 
between  his  orbits  by  the  bones  of  the  nose,  as  in  the  Caucasian  sp  cies.  The  nos- 
trils, however,  are  much  wider,  about  as  wide  from  wing  towing,  as  the  white  man's 
mouth  from  corner  to  corner,  and  the  internal  bones,  called  the  turbinate  1,  on  which 
the  olfactory  nerves  are  spread,  are  larger  and  project  nearer  to  the  opening  of  the 
nostrils  t'lan  in  the  whit;  man.  Hence  the  n  "gro  approximates  the  lower  a  limals  in 
his  si-nse  of  smell,  and  can  detect  snakes  by  that  sense  alon-.  All  the  sens  /s  are 
more  acute,  but  I's-;  dlicate  and  discriminating,  than  the  white  man's.  He  has  a 
good  ear  for  m<diMly  but  not  for  harmony,  a  keen  taste  and  relish  for  foo  1  but  less 
diserimiu  iting  between  the  dilfecent  kinds  of  esculent  substances  than  the  Cauca- 
sian. His  lips  are  imm  wisely  thicker  than  any  of  the  white  race,  his  nose  broader 
anil  flatter,  his  chin  smaller  and  more  retreating,  his  foot  flatter,  broader,  larger, 
and  the  heel  longer,  while  he  has  scarcely  any  calves  at  all  to  his  legs  when  com- 

Eared  to  an  etiu.illy  healthy  and  muscular  white  man.  He  does  not  walk  flat  oa 
is  feet  but  on  the  outer  sides,  in  consequence  of  the  sole  of  the  foot  havin^?  a  di- 
rection inward  ^,  from  the  legs  and  thighs  being  arched  outwards  and  ths  knees  bent. 
The  verb,  from  which  hia  Hebrew  name  la  derived,  points  oat  Uu."  dere'f  po^itio'  of 


APPENDIX  *7 

the  knees,  and  also  clearly  expresses  the  servile  type  of  his  ininS.  Ham,  the  father 
of  Cun;uui,  when  trai\slat<d  into  plain  English,  r.-ads  that  a  black  man  was  the  fa^ 
tber  of  the  slave  or  knee-bending  s^pecies  of  mankind. 

The  blackness  of  th-  proj^naiiioiis  race,  known  in  Ihi  world's  history  as  Ca- 
naanites,  Cu>-hiies,  Ethiopians,  black  men  or  ncgrois,  is  not  confined  to  the  s^kin, 
but  pervMik's,  in  a  greater  or  l-ss  dgre  •,  the  whole  i:iward  man  down  to  the  bones 
tiiemselves,  giving  the  flesh  and  the  blood,  the  me  mbrancs  nnd  every  organ  and 
part  of  the  body,  cxcipt  the  bone!!,  a  darker  hue  tlian  in  the  white  race  Wlio 
knows  but  what  Canaan's  mother  may  have  been  a  g'  nuine  Cu-hite,  as  Mack  inside 
as  out,  and  that  Cush,  which  m.'iins  blackness,  was  the  maik  put  uiou  Cain? 
■Whatever  may  have  been  the  m;irk  set  upon  Cain,  the  m  gro,  in  all  aiie>  ot  the 
world,  has  c.u"rled  with  him  a  mark  equally  etfieient  in  preventing  liim  from  being 
slain— the  murk  of  blackness.  The  wild  Arabs  and  hostile  Amurican  Indians  in- 
variably catch  the  black  wanderer  and  make  a  slave  of  him  instead  of  killing  him, 
as  they  do  the  white  man. 

NicU.  PecUlin,  in  a  work  written  last  century  entitled  "  De  cult  Athi'tpum,"  Albinns,  in  another 
work,  entitled  "  De  sedeet  causa  efforts  Athiop,"  as  al~o  the  creat  German  anatomists.  Jl.iners,  F.bel, 
and  Soemmering,  all  bear  witness  to  the  fact  tbat  the  muscles,  blood,  membranes,  and  al:  the  inter- 
nal org  ns  of  the  body,  (the  bones  alone  excepted.)  are  of  a  darker  hue  in  the  negro  than  in  the 
white  man.  They  estimate  the  difference  in  color  to  be  equal  to  that  which  exists  between  the  hare 
and  the  rabbit.  Who  ever  doubts  the  fact,  or  h.ig  none  of  those  old  and  impartial  authorities  at 
hand— impartial  because  they  were  written  before  England  adopted  t!.e  poHcy  of  pre.«sing  religion 
and  science  in  her  service  to  place  white  American  republican  freemen  and  Guinea  negroes  upon  the 
same  platform— has  only  to  look  into  the  mouth  of  the  first  healthy  typical  negro  he  meets  to  be 
convinced  of  the  truth,  that  the  entire  membraneous  lining  of  the  inside  of  the  cheeks,  Ups  and 
gums  is  of  a  much  darker  color  than  in  the  white  man. 

The  negro,  however,  must  be  healthy  and  in  good  condition — sickness,  hard  usage  and  chrome 
ailments,  pariicularly  that  cachescia,  improperly  called  consumption,  speedily  extracts  the  color- 
ing matter  out  of  the  mucou<  men  braues,  leaving  them  pal^r  and  whiter  than  in  Iht-  Caucasian. 
The  bleaching  process  oi  bad  health  or  degeneration  begins  in  the  bloo.l,  membranes  ami  muscles, 
and  finally  extiaclii  so  much  of  the  coloring  pigment  out  of  the  skin,  as  to  give  it  a  dull,  «^hy 
Appearance,  sometimes  extracting  the  whole  of  it,  converting  the  m-gro  into  the  albino.  Albi- 
noism  or  cucoi-is  does  not  necessarily  imply  hybridism.  It  occurs  among  the  pure  Africans  from 
any  cause  pr<Kiu(;ing  a  degeneration  of  the  species.  Hybridism,  however,  is  the  most  prolific  source 
of  tbat  degeneration,  ajmetimes  the  degeneration  sliows  itself  by  white  spots,  like  the  petals  of 
flowers,  covering  different  parts  of  the  skin.  Tlie  Mexicans  are  subject  to  a  similar  degeneration, 
only  that  the  spots  and  striiies  are  black  instead  of  white.  It  is  called  the  pinto  with  them.  Even  the 
pigment  of  the  iris  and  the  coloring  matter  of  the  Albino's  hair  absorbed,  giving  it  a  silvery  white  ap- 
pearance, and  converting  him  into  a  clairvovant  at  night.  According  to  I'rolessors  Brown,  Seidy  and 
Gibbs,  the  negro's  hair  Ls  not  tubular,  like  the"  white  miu's, but  it  is  excentriciUyeliptical  with  Batten- 
ed e  iges,  the  coloring  matter  residing  in  the  epidermis  and  not  in  tubes.  In  the  place  of  a  tube,  the 
shaft  of  each  hair  is  surrounded  with  a  scaly  covering  like  sheep's  wool,  and,  like  wool,  is  capable  of 
being  fvlled.  True  hair  does  not  possess  that  property.  Tlie  degeneration  called  Albinoism  has  a 
remarkable  influence  upon  the  hair,  destroying  its  coarse,  nappy,  wooly  api'carance,  and  converting 
it  into  fine,  long,  soft,  silky,  curly  threads.  Often,  the  whol-  external  skin,  so  remarkably  void  of 
hair  in  the  healthy  negro",  becomes  covered  with  a  very  fiue,  sUky  down,  scarcely  perceptible  to 
the  naked  eye,  when  transformed  into  the  Albino.  . 

Mr.  B.jwen,  the  celebrated  Baptist  missionary,  (see  his  work  entitled  Central  Africa  and  Missionary 
Labors  from  1849  to  1856,  bv  T.  .1.  Bowen,  Charleston,  Soutliem  Baptist  Publication  Society,  18o7,) 
met  with  a  great  m.iny  eases  of  leucosis  in  SuU'lan  or  Xegrokind  back  of  Liberia,  and  erroneously 
concluded  that  these  people  had  very  Uttle,  if  any  negro  blood  in  them,  and  would  be  better  subjects 
for  missionarv  labors  than  the  blacks  of  the  same  country.  They  are,  however,  nothing  but  whiU 
black  men,  a  degeneration  of  the  negro  proper,  and  are  even  less  capable  of  perpetuating  themselves 
than  the  hybrids  or  mulattoes.  Mr.  Bowen  is  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  depopulation,  which  he 
Terifieshas  been  going  on  in  Soudan  the  last  fifty  years,  threatening  to  leave  the  country,  at  no  dis- 
tant lime,  bare  of  inhabitants,  unless  roads  be  c<mstructed  by  the  Christians  of  the  southern  States 
forcoram-rcial  intercourse,  and  double  exertions  made  to  civilise  and  Christianise  the  waning  popu- 
lation of  Central  Africa  before  it  entirely  disappears.  The  good  missionary,  though  sent  out  from 
Georgia,  was  evidently  taught  in  that  British  school  which  assumes  th»t  there  is  only  a  sm;,'le  species 
in  the  genus  homo,  in  opposition  to  the  Bible,  that  clearly  designates  three.  That  school  quotes 
the  references  iu  the  saired  v.dume,  implying  unity  in  the  genus—a  unity  which  no  one  denies— to 
disprove  the  exi  stence  of  distinct  siecies,  and  upon  this  fallacy  builds  the  theory  that  negro,  Indian 
and  white  men  are  beings  exactly  alike,  because  they  are  human  beings.  Ergn,  the  liberty  so  bene- 
ficlal  to  the  white  man,  would  be  equally  so  to  the  negro— dis.egarding  as  a  fable  thos-  words  of  the 
Bible  expres-ly  declaring  that  the  latter  shaU  be  tervant  of  unanlt  lo  the  former— words  which 
would  not  have  been  there  if  th;U  kind  of  subordination  called  slavery  was  not  the  normal  condition 
of  the  nice  of  Ham.  To  expect  to  civihse  or  ChriitianLse  the  negro  without  the  interTention  of 
slavery  is  to  expeC.  an  impossibility.  ,  ..     ^.  .■     ■ 

Mr  Bowen's  experience  and  natural  good  jense  occasionally  got  the  better  of  hn  theoretical 
Tiews.  Ihns,  at  paga  90,  we  find  him  confessing  that  "the  nitive  African  negroes  ought  to  have 
in<ster»inobedi.ncetothedemands<if  natural  justice."     At  page  149  he  leis  us  into  the  seciet 


missii.narv,  wh..  was  present  al  the  beheading,  made  n..  comment  fur'  aer  than  to  >tate  tim  tact. 
But  he  might  h«»»  added  that  the  blood  of  that  negro,  anJ  millioua  ut  others,  will  be  leijuired  at 


48  APPENDIX. 

the  hani^H  of  Vic'oria  Rofcina  hn<\  the  Unile.l  St»te»  for  having  offioiouslT  destroyed  the  ralue  of 
ne«;ro  (jp'perty  in  AlncH  by  hriaking  up  the  only  trmle  tliat  evr  prot.-cte<l  the  oatiTe  Africani 
•gainst  tlie  huti-lieri*"*,  crut-Iliei'  ami  l■pprel<^il•^«  of  their  mulatlo,  M.Mirixli  and  Malioinme<1an 
tyrantK  It  in  ihe/-e  hiitcl.Hriej>  and  cruel  lien,  and  the  lit  lie  care  taW«-D  of  ihe  hUck  man  in  Africa, 
the  la,--t  flflv  yearn.  Rince  he  became  valueleRn  Ihr  .ugh  B:iti»h  and  American  pliilanlhropy,  'hat 
li«  at  the  root  of  the  depopulating  procen-i  whi  h  ia  (toing  on  in  the  "lark  land  of  the  Niger. 
Km|itv  hiig<  are  now  fiileil  with  liead<  instead  of  cowries.  Mr.  Bowen  was  surpri.sed  to  »ee  ao 
few  black  men  in  Smlan.  where,  half  a  century  ago,  he  Navn  tliey  were  »o  oumeroua.  But  he 
rather  iei;ard>:  it  as  a  lortiinate  circum.'^iance,  as  he  haa  do  hope  ol  clirinlinniisiog  the  typical 
neifrii,  »•  xcept  ihrouifh  slavery  to  Christian  masters — and  tha'  idea  ia  iibh>irrent  to  the  fchool  ia 
which  liH  wiis  tauijtit  ;  but  he  has  more  hope  from  the  mixed  races,  and  thefe.  he  confesses,  can- 
not be  .-ffi-ctually  christianised  until  civilised.  He  deplores  the  bad  example  of  the  black 
race,  am<>i)g  iheni,  iheii-  pul\gamy,  &c.,  aa  greatly  in  the  way  of  civilising  the  mulattoea.  But 
he  has  overhi<keil  the  important  fact,  aa  many  do,  tlat  Ihe  existence  of  the  hybrids  themselves 
depends  upon  the  existeni-e  of  the  typical  Anicana.  The  extiuclion  of  the  lailer  must,  of  necea- 
sity.  be  Hooii  followed  by  the  extincliun  of  the  former,  as  they  cannot,  for  any  length  of  lime,  pro- 
pagAte  amc.og  iht-mselves. 

Mr.  Bowen  inferrt-d  tliat  the  negroes  of  Central  Africa,  although  diminishing  in  numbers,  are 
rising  hiifher  in  the  scale  of  humanity,  from  the  very  small  circumstance  that  they  do  not  emit 
from  their  bodies  so  strong  and  so  offensive  an  odor  as  the  negro  slaves  of  Georgia  and  theCaro 
linaa  do,  nor  are  their  skinsof  so  de.  p  a  black.  This  isa  good  illustration  ol  the  important  truh, 
that  all  the  .langer  of  the  slnvery  question  lies  in  the  ignorance  of  Scripture  and  the  natural  his- 
tory ol  the  nngro.  A  litile  acqiaintance  with  the  negro's  natural  history  would  prove  to  Mr. 
B'lwen  thai  the  strong  odor  emitted  by  the  negro,  like  the  deep  piiftnent  of  the  skin,  ia  an  indica- 
tion of  high  health,  happini'ss,  and  good  treatment,  while  its  deficiency  is  a  fure  signofunhap- 
pinesa,  dist-ase.  ba''.  treatment,  or  degeneration.  The  skin  ol  a  hatipy,  hea'thy  negro  is  not  only 
blacker  and  more  oily  than  an  unhappy,  unhealthy  one,  but  emits  the  strongest  odor  wh>-n  the 
body  ia  warraeri  by  extrcise  and  the  aoul  is  filled  with  the  most  pleasurable  emotions.  In  the 
dance  called  pa/lintj  juber.  the  odor  emitted  from  the  men,  int->xic  ited  with  ple.4sure.  Is  often 
so  p  iwerfiil  a^  to  ilimw  the  negro  women  into  paroxysms  of  unconsciousness,  vulgo  hysterics. 
On  another  point  of  much  importance  there  is  no  practical  difference  between  the  Rev.  missionary 
and  that  clearheaded,  bold,  and  eccentric  <dd  Methoiiist,  Dr.  McFatlane.  Roth  believe  that  the 
Bible  can  do  ignorant,  sensual  sav:tge.s  no  good;  both  believe  that  n  lUing  but  compulsatory 
power  cau  restrain  uncivilised  barbarians  fiom  polygamy,  itebriety.  nc  i  other  sinful  practices. 

The  good  mi-sionary,  however,  believes  in  the  possibility  of  civili.siu,  ihe  inferior  races  by  the 
money  and  means  of  the  Christian  nations  lavishly  bestowed,  after  wU.'-h  he  thinks  it  will  be  no 
difH:uU  matter  to  convert  them  to  Christiauiiy.  Whereas  the  venera  >le  Methodist  believes  in 
the  impossibility  of  civilLsng  them,  and  therefore  concludes  that  the  ttiuieu  Word  was  not  in- 
tended for  those  inferior  races  who  cannot  read  it.  When  the  philusophy  of  the  prognathous 
species  of  mankind  is  better  understood,  it  will  be  seen  how  they,  the  lowest  of  the  human  spe- 
cies, can  lie  made  partakers,  equally  with  the  highest,  in  tlie  blessings  and  benefits  of  the  Written 
Word  of  God.  The  plantation  laws  against  polygamy,  intoxicating  drinks  and  other  besettiiig  sins 
of  the  negro  race  in  the  .savage  state,  are  gradually  and  silently  converting  the  African  barbarian  in- 
to a  moral,  rational  and  civilised  being,  thereby  lendeiing  the  heart  a  fit  tabernacle  for  the  reception 
of  Gospel  IruUis.  The  prejudices  of  many,  perhaps  the  majority  of  the  southern  people,  against 
educating  the  ne:;ioes  they  hold  in  subjection,  ari.se  from  some  vague  and  indefinite  fears  of  its  con- 
sequences, suggested  by  the  Abolition  and  British  theories  built  on  the  false  assumption  that  the 
negro  is  a  white  man  with  a  black  skin.  If  such  an  assumiition  had  the  .smallest  degree  of  truth  in 
it,  the  more  prolound  the  iguorance  and  the  deeper  sunk  in  barbarism  the  slaves  were  kept,  the 
better  it  would  be  for  tliem  and  their  masters.  But  experience  proves  Miat  masters  and  overseer* 
have  nothing  at  all  to  fear  from  civilised  and  intelligent  negroes  and  no  trouble  whatever  in  manag- 
ing them — liiat  allthe  trouble,  insubordinatijn  and  danger  arise  from  the  uncivilised,  immorai,  rude, 
and  grossly  i,'nor'(nt  portion  of  the  servile  race.  It  is  not  the  ign  irant  semi  barbarian  that  the 
master  or  overseer  entrusts  with  his  keys,  his  mon^y,  his  h'^rse  or  his  gun,  but  the  most  intelligent 
ou  th«  plantation — one  who.se  intellect  and  morals  liave  undergone  the  best  training.  An  educated 
negro,  <me  whose  intellect  ami  morals  have  been  cultiva'.ed,  is  worth  double  the  price  of  the  wild, 
unciil'ivated,  black  barbarian  of  Cuba,  and  will  do  twice  as  much  work,  do  it  better  and  wi^h  le&s 
trouble. 

The  prejudices  against  educating  the  negroes  may  also  be  traced  to  the  neglect  of  American  div- 
ines in  making  th-  mselves  acquainted  with  Hebrew  literature.  What  little  the  most  of  them  know 
of  the  meaning  of  Ihe  untranslateil  terms  occuring  in  the  Bible,  and  the  siguifica.ion  of  the  verbs 
from  wliicli  thiy  are  derived,  is  mostly  gathered  from  British  commentators  and  glossary  makers. 
Who  have  blinked  Ihe  facts  that  disprove  the  Kxeter  Hall  dogma,  that  negro  slavery  is  sin  against 
God.  Hence,  even  in  the  South,  the  important  biblical  truth,  that  the  white  man  derives  his  au- 
thority to  govern  the  negro  from  the  Great  Jehovah,  is  seldom  proclaimed  from  the  pulpit.  If  it 
were  proclaimed,  the  master  race  would  see  deeper  into  their  responsibilities  and  look  closer  into  the 
duties  they  owe  to  ihe  people  whom  God  has  given  them  as  an  inheriianoe,  and  their  children  after 
them,  so  long  as  lime  shall  last.  That  mm  has  no  fa  th  in  Ihe  Scriptures  who  believes  that  educa- 
tion could  defeat  (jod's  purposes,  in  subjecting  Ihe  black  man  to  the  government  of  the  white.  On 
the  contrary,  experience  proves  its  advantavies,  to  both  parties.  Aside  and  apart  from  Scripture  au- 
thority, natural  history  reveals  most  of  the  same  facts,  in  re:arc|  to  the  ne^ro  that  the  Bible  does. 
It  pioves  the  existence  of  at  least  three  distinct  s|)ecies  of  the  g-nus  man,  dilfering  in  their  instincts, 
form,  habiU  ami  color.  The  while  species  having  qualities  denied  to  the  black — one  with  a  free 
and  the  other  with  a  servile  mind^ine  a  thinking  and  n-fleclive  being,  the  oflur  a  creature  of  feeling 
and  imitation,  almost  void  of  retleclive  faculties,  and  consequently  unable  to  provide  for  and  take 
care  of  himself.  The  rel.itiim  of  master  and  slave  would  naturally  spring  up  betwf'n  two  such  diff- 
erent snecies  of  men,  even  if  there  was  no  Scriplur"  authority  to  support  it.  The  relation  thus  es- 
tablished, being  n.itural,  would  be  drawn  closer  together,  instead  o  severed,  b/  the  ioferiur  imit*< 
ting  the  superior  ia  all  his  ways,  or  in  other  wurd;i,  acquiring  an  eJucaaon. 


THK  XEW  YORK  DAY-BOOK  was  »tarte<1  to  coinlwt  the  moiicrii  lieresies  of  AbxUtionism, 
in<l  1ms  ever  since  t-toaiUly  |>ur.<up<l  tlial  object  lt<  rcniiluctur.s  recuiriiiy.p  t!iP (Trent  fiict— which 
a  new  era  lias  inaiiifunitetl,  and  which  evpii  tlie  sovercivtris  of  Eiiri>|ie  iimv  bow  befon — that  opinion 
rules  the  world.  Kor  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  imiiimi^  and  dangerous  doctrines  of  Abolitionism — 
which  sprang  up  in  nionarchial  ED-jland — have  been  illustriously  pnipai^ated  in  the  Tnite'l  States. 
For  years  no  one  ventured  to  question  the  funJanieu'nl  piinriples  which  its  advocates  a'iopted  as 
the  premise.^  of  their  ar,'uments.  Milli<uis  of  imices  of  niaUer  have  been  circulated,  and  th<Misands 
upon  thousands  of  dollars  expended  in  gigantic  efforts  to  corrupt  nien'>  minilK  with  the  lioctrine 
that  negroes  are  entitled  to  the  same  rights  as  white  men,  and  that  the  neifro  race  is  not  naturally 
inferior,  but  artificially  deeraded  The  ItAYnonK  denies  this  :ind  repils  it.  It  seeks  to  show 
tliat  were  the  negro  race  incorporated  and  amalgainalecl  with  the  white  citizenihip,  it  would  so 
'..-base  and  ileteriorate  the  latter  as  to  unileriiiim-  'quality  nrrumg  whiU:  men  and  render  Demo- 
r:icy  ami  Republican  institutions  impracticable  ami  impossible.  If  any  doubt  should  exist  on 
his  iM)iDt  it  i.s  only  necessftry  to  look  at  Mexico,  Central  America  and  the  countries  south  of  us, 
and  witness  the  ruin,  the  degradation,  the  punishment,  nii.sery,  anarchy,  and  even  death,  which 
follow  all  attempts  to  incorporate  ilifferent  races  in  the  same  political  .system  Yet,  we  have  a 
p:irty  in  the  North,  growing  in  strength,  which  advocates  tliis,  and  repudiates  the  decision  of  the 
Sui)reme  Court,  that  negroes  cannot  be  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  boldly  threatens  to'sieze 
the  government  and  reverse  the  just  ami  righteous  judgment  !  Yea,  more,  it  refuses  to  perform 
the  solemn  obligations  our  fathers  entered  into  when  they  formed  the  confederai-y  !  It  denies 
co-equal  States  the  .same  riehts  in  the  common  Territories  !  It  makes  voters  of  negroes  in  Massa- 
chusetts, and  places  them  even  above  white  men  !  In  a  word,  it  seeks  to  reverse  ihe  laws  of 
nature,  as  embodied  In  true  Democracy,  and  restore  to  this  countrv  all  tho>e  artificial  distinctions 
which  have  made  Europe  the  home  of  oppre.s.-;ion  and  the  hospital  of  outraged  ami  down-trodden 
humanity.  It  is  now  workinir  with  all  the  power  which  desperation  infuses  to  elect  a  I're-ident 
in  1860  who  thall  inaugurate  its  dangerous  doctrines.  Are  iho.-e  who  wish  to  see  our  country 
united  and  happy,  as  it  is  already  proud  and  prosperous,  going  to  stand  still  anil  see  this  accom- 
plished ?  Can  any  one  doubt  th.it  the  success  of  such  a  party  would  not  be  fraught  with  untold 
dangers  to  this  Republic?  Ami  does  not  the  jireseiii  crisis  demand  the  earnest  co-operation  of  every 
lover  of  his  country  to  roll  back  tlie  tide  of  public  .'.eutiment,  which  years  of  active  abolition 
teachings  have  developed?  Shall  not  a  generatii>n  be  educated  who  will  drive  this  Briti.sh  dogma 
from  our  soil  ?  lo  all  who  feel  that  this  is  a  desirable  work— who  feel  that  it  is  important  and 
necessary  to  defeat"  thi.s  sectional  party  in  1860— the  DAY-BOOK  look.s  for  patronage  and  active 
jpport 

THE  EVENING  DAY-BOOK 

Is  published  KVERY  AriT.li.NOOV  (.-Sundays  excepted),  ai  d  .oiilains  all  the  latest  news  up  to  the 
hour  olgolng  to  jiress.  It  h.is  tlie  latest  telegraphic  news  from  all  parts  of  the  country,  city  items, 
Kliiropean  news,  full  commercial  and  market  reports,  &c. 

Teini~.  ler  viur..~^ix  Dollars  in  advance. 


THE  "WEEKLY  DAY-BOOK, 

Containing  all  the  principal  matter  of  the  daily,  has  n-'  superior  as  a  newspaper.  The  foreign  and 
domestic  intelligence  is  full  and  complete,  and  il-.  correspondence  varied  and  interesting.  It  keeps 
its  readers  posted  upon  all  th'-  leading  eveuts  of  'he  day.  and  loses  no  opportunity  to  add  to  the 
interest  or  variety  of  its  columns.  It  is  a  quarto  jourii  il,  with  FoK-n -eight  cotfM.NS  of  matter,  all 
of  which  is  carefully  prepared  for  country  circulation.  Just  and  discriminating  notices  ot  new 
publications  are  given  by  a  compi-tent  literary  critic,  and  a  story  for  the  home  circle  is  always  fur- 
nished from  the  pen  of  some  good  writer;  thus  combining  the  advantages  of  a  literary  journal  and 
a  newspaper  Great  care  is  taken  with  the  reports  of  market-,  in  order  to  present  farmers, 
planters,  merchants,  drover.s,  kc  ,  with  a  journal  from  the  commercial  metropolis  of  ihe  Union, 
containing  a  full  and  correct  report  of  the  Cotton,  Grain,  Cattle  and  I'loduce  markets.  Thrse  fea- 
tures of  the  DAY-BOOK  have  rendered  it  a  fivorile  even  among  those  \y,h<>,'»'  "•'  puf'- I'ilh  it-' 
in  politics.  The  price  at  wiiich  the  DAY-BOUK  is  furuished  i.s  lowi-i  tlit,ii  tiiat  of  any  similar 
pajier,  a»  will  be  seen  by  the  following 

TERMS. 

Single  copy,  per  annum $-  f  0 

Two  copies,  to  one  Post-office 3  I  0 

Five  copies 5  00 

Twenty -one  copies  (one  being  to  th>-  getter-up  of  the  club)   20  00 
Payment  is  required  invjiriably  i.v  AnVASCv.,  and  the  papir  is  always  di-coniiuued  at  the  expira- 
tion of  .tlie  time  of  advance  fay  meot.     Specimen  copies   sent  CKKK.     Subscriptions  can   commence 
at  any  time.  ^ 

When  drafts  can  be  obtained,  tli-y  are  safer  than  to  send  billn.  But  when  inonev  is  rt-mitled  by 
Postmasters,  or  I'ostmaniets  ar..- made  arquiinled  with  the  conteur.H  of  letters,  Kent  wo  they  can 
certify,  in  case  they  are  lost,  iliai  the  money  was  dent,  it  is  at  our  risk. 

Allordering  ■  -pern  should  be  careful  to  write  the  l'i».-"l  offlce,  Cuuuty,  and  Slate  tn/uU.     Addremi 

VAN  EVRIE,  HORTON  &  CO., 

I'LIJLI.-HEIIS.  No.  -to  AVN  ST..  NEW  YORK. 
J8S-  All  are  invited  to  sen  1  for  Spenmen  a-piet,  nnd  we  thall  e»:etm  it  a  favor  lo  receive  Lift*  '/ 
Names/or  that  purpose  from  any  fHtnd  nf  tlie  cause. 

.  .6^^.  .^^v  .^"^^  .tf^^^  . 


<■ 


l'      -^ 


08  lU 


ANTI-ABOLITION  DOCUMENTS. 


Negroes    &    Negro    "  Slavery." 

The  First  an  IiitVrior  Race— The  latter  its  Normal  Condition.  By  J.  H.  Van 
Evrie,  M.  D.  Beine  the  intr(«lnctoiy  chapter  of  a  larger  work.  Price  six  cents. 
Twealy  copies  for  $1,  or  $4  per  hundred. 

The  Died  Scott  Decision, 

With  an  Tntroductinn  by  Dr.  Van  Evrie,  and  an  Appendix  by  Dr.  Cartwri(?ht.  Nothing  forgeneral 
circulation  has  been  more  needed  than  an  edition  of  the  noted  decision  of  Chief  Justice  TaneT.  in 
the  celebrate  d  Drecl  .'■■cutt  case.  It  has  been  ro  mis-represented  and  maligned  by  the  "  Repubhcjin  " 
pres.s.  tiat  only  few  know  really  what  it  contaioK.  It  has  acconiingly  been  ifisued  for  general  cir- 
culation in  Its  present  cheap  :ind  popular  form.  In  order  to  make  thp  decision  more  complete,  we 
have  prefixed  an  historical  introduction  by  Dr. Van  Kvrie,  and  added  an  appemiix  by  Dr.  Cartwright 
of  New  Urleans.  Tlie  two  give  a  cnniplete  picture  of  the  entire  "  slavery  ''  question  in  its  historical, 
legal  and  physical  is|>ects.  Tliis  decision  should  be  circulated  far  and  wide  before  the  next  I'resj- 
d«-nti#l  e'ection,  as  it  gives  the  people  just  the  information  they  need  to  vote  intelligently,  and  it 
is  commended  to  IH-mocratic  State,  County  and  Town  Ommittees.  ^^ingle  copies,  35  cents  ;  Five 
copie.s,  $1  ;  Fifty  copii-s,  $6  ;  Oue  hundrid  copies,  orover,  $10  per  hundred. 


cc 


Negro  Slavery  Not  Unjust.'* 


Speech  of  Chas.  O 'Conor,  E=q.,  at  the  Union  Meeting  in  New  York.  This  bold,  manly  and 
truly  philosophical  "peech  marks  an  era  in  the  great  change  in  pabhc  opinion  now  going  on  at  the 
Xorth  on  the  subject  of  "  .Negro  Slavery."  It  should  be  read  by  every  person  who  desires  to  com- 
bat the  false  logic  of  the  Abolitioni.-ts.  A  general  circulati.  n  of  it  would  exert  a  most  powerful 
influence  in  favor  of  the  Democracy  at  the  n«-xt  election.  Single  copie-s  6  cents  ;  Twenty  copies,  $1 ; 
$4  per  hundred. 

insr     i='i=i.E]ss- 

To  be  issued,  April  1. 1860. 1  vol.  12mo.,  the  large  work  of  Dr.  Van  Evrie,  on 

Negroes  and  Negro  Slavery. 

The  author  of  this  publication  has  devoted  several  years  to  this  inquiry,  especially  to  that  portion 
"f 'he  general  subject,  embiRcing  the  fptrific  character  of  the  negro,  ami  the  n-itural  re.lations  of 
Whites  and  negroes  ;  t^e  result  of  which  he  is  now  preparfrd  to  lay  before  the  public. 

stripping  olt  the  s  in  of  the  negro,  he  proposes  to  demonstrate  the  senses,  a>  well  as  the  reason 
that  he  is  not  a  black  wl;itf  man,  or  a  mau  merely  with  a  black  skin,  but  a  mrFKBKXT  Ji.\u  in>t 
KloR  .spKfiKS  OK  jjA.v  : — that  this  difference  is  radical  and  total,  and  relatively  as  great  in  the  pri 
moril  al  .irrangt-nient  of  elementary  particles,  "r  the  single  globule  of  blood,  as  in  the  color  of  tli- 
skin,  or  the  giosser  lacts.  p.iliKil.  eio  t'--  fnses  ; — that  it  is  original,  iuvariable  and  indestructibl.  . 
as  long  as  the  pre.sent  order  of  creation  ilseli'  lasts;— that  the  physical  structure  of  the  race  is  u>c>-^ 
vaii  y  and  jierpetually  linkfd  with  corresponding  faculties,  capabilities,  wants,  necessities — in  -li..'-; . 
with  a  specific  natuie,  and  thus  isdesi;^:— I  'ly  t!je  Almighty  Cnator  for  correrpondiiv.'  porp"-!  -,  r 
a  social  position,  hatmonizini;  with  those  wants,  etc.: — that  therefore  all  the 
soci.il  systi  111  of  the  ."viutli,  being  based  on  false  assumptions,  are  themselves 
that  so  called  shiverv  is  neiiher  a  "wrong,"  nor  an  *'evil,"  nor  is  its  extensii  n 

i*.  is  a  noruial  condition,  a  natural  relation,  liased  upon  the  '"higher  law,"  in  h^mn^ny  with  the 
order,  progress,  Hnd  general  well-being  of  the  superior  one,  and  absolutely  essential  to  the  verj 
existence  of  the  inferior  r«ce. 

i?everal  thousand  copies  of  the  introiluctory  chap'er  of  the  above  work  have  been  circulate<l,  and 
:,•!  t  .,  ,.  ,        >'  >o|t  lias  been  su  g«aer.<l.  that  the   author  has  determined  to  postpone  ita 

is.«ue  no  longer. 

It  will,  therefore,  be  ready  for  distribution  on  the  first  day  of  April  next,  and  as  the  demand  is 
likely  to  be  very  large,  all  who  desire  to  receive  copies  in  season  should  send  in  their  orders  in 
advance. 

^^00~  Evi  ry  person  will  l^e  supplied  in  the  <  rder  of  his  remittance,  at  the  rate  of 
$1  tor  each  copy  oidercd,  and  th<  y  will  be  sent  by  mailor  expres.=.  free  ot  charge. 

NoTK. — The  vidunie  is  piil.'lished  by  the  author  himself,  in  order  to  save  the 
charge.-*  of  publishers,  and  iluis  lurnish  it  at  a  low  rate  lo  the  masses  of  ibe  people 
whom  it  is  important  to  reach. 

All  th"  above  works  bi  ar  directly  upon  the  great  crisis  now  before  the  country, 
!inM  sh(  uld  be  placed  in  ihe  hands  of  every  person  who  d<  sires  weapons  to  combat 
I  he  hi  n  ses  ipf  Ihe  "  Bt  publicans.''  Th'-y  will  be  sent,  postage  paid,  at  the  above 
rates.      Addr  ss 

VAN  EVRIE,  HORTON  &  Co., 

PUBLISHKHS  OF  DAY-HOOK, 

Xkw  York  Cmr. 


